Delhi High Court Quashes NHAI Rule Using CLAT-PG Scores for Hiring, Says Academic Eligibility Cannot Decide Public Employment
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that the score of the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT) PG cannot be adopted as the basis for public employment. Striking down a National Highways Authority of India notification that prescribed CLAT (PG) scores as the sole criterion for recruiting Young Professionals (Legal), the Court observed that the eligibility standard for higher studies and the suitability criteria for public service cannot be equated. It held the notification violative of Articles 14 and 16 and set it aside
The writ petition was instituted by advocate Shannu Baghel challenging NHAI’s notification inviting applications for Young Professional (Legal) posts on a contractual basis. The notification mandated that recruitment would be conducted solely on the basis of merit in CLAT (PG) score from 2022 onwards, apart from a law degree from a recognized institution. The petitioner contended that this criterion was arbitrary and violative of constitutional guarantees of equality under Articles 14 and 16.
It was argued on behalf of the petitioner that the restriction to CLAT (PG) scores from 2022 excluded equally or more meritorious law graduates who appeared in other entrance examinations or prior to 2022. The petitioner maintained that there was no rational nexus between a CLAT (PG) score—primarily meant for admission to postgraduate law courses—and suitability for employment in NHAI.
The petitioner relied on Supreme Court precedent in State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976) 2 SCC 310, asserting that selection criteria in public employment must bear a rational connection with the purpose of the role. It was further submitted that confining selection to CLAT (PG) post-2022 scores foreclosed opportunities for fresh graduates engaged in practice or those who had qualified before 2022.
NHAI, in its counter affidavit, defended its policy. It stated that CLAT-PG is a national level standardized examination conducted by a consortium of National Law Universities, accepted as a credible test of legal aptitude. It asserted that the exam is not merely academic but also measures comprehension, reasoning, and application of law, and its adoption ensured uniformity, transparency, and objectivity while avoiding the cost of conducting independent examinations. NHAI also noted that several organizations, including IOCL, NTPC, ONGC, PGCIL, and JAG, used CLAT (PG) scores for recruitment.
The Bench observed that “qualification must be reasonably relevant to the recognized performance and requirements of service.” It noted: “The prerogative of the employer in relation to prescribing qualification is not absolute.”
Referring to Shri Parvez Qadir v. Union of India (1975) 4 SCC 318, the Court reiterated: “It is not for this Court to lay down which of the methods has to be adopted for adjudging suitability as long as the norms which have been adopted are correlated and relevant to the adjudgment of the suitability of the officers to be recruited.”
The Court further drew from State of Mysore v. P. Narasinga Rao (1967), which held that higher qualifications may justify classification if they bear a rational nexus to the objective of the rule. Similarly, in State of Orissa v. N.N. Swamy (1977) 2 SCC 508, conditions without nexus to the object of appointment were invalidated.
Applying these precedents, the Bench reasoned that no rational nexus was established between CLAT (PG) scores and suitability for NHAI employment. It recorded: “The criteria determining eligibility for pursuing higher courses (post graduation) and the criteria for adjudging suitability for public employment, in our opinion, cannot be equated with each other.” The Court stated that CLAT (PG) adjudges suitability for academic progression, not employability.
The Court stated the vagueness of the notification: “This criterion is absolutely vague for the reason that as per the said criteria even if a candidate has secured Zero or Nil marks on his appearance in CLAT (PG) examination, he shall be eligible, whereas if a candidate has not appeared in the CLAT (PG) examination, he shall be ineligible.” It found such prescription unreasonable and contrary to constitutional mandates.
The Court also rejected NHAI’s reliance on practices of other organizations: “Because certain other organizations including the public sector undertakings, have been adopting CLAT (PG) score as basis for offering employment, is not a justification… for the NHAI to prescribe the impugned recruitment criteria.”
The judgment concluded: “In view of the reasons given and discussions made above, we are fully convinced that the impugned ‘recruitment criteria’ where selection for appointment to the post in question is to be made on the basis of merit in CLAT (PG) score – 2022 onwards, is legally not tenable being hit by Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Shannu Baghel, Mr. Ganpat Ram, Mr. Gorang Goyal, Mr. Aakash, Mr. Saksham Kumar, Ms. Disha Gutpa, Mr. Shubham Prajapati, and Mr. Jitendra Kumar, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Dr. Manika Aroa, CGSC with Mr. Subhro Deep Saha, Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Ms. Anamika Thakur, Mr. Abhinav Verma, Advocates for Union of India with Ms. Neha Sharma and Ms. Karnika Bhargava, Advocates; Mr. Ankur Mittal and Ms. Rabaica Jaiswal, Advocates for NHAI.
Case Title: Shannu Baghel v. Union of India & Anr.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:8507-DB
Case Number: W.P.(C) 13490/2025 & CM APPL. 55383/2025
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya; Justice Tushar Rao Gedela
