“‘No Preferential Treatment, No Grace Marks’: Punjab and Haryana High Court Declines Relief to Judicial Aspirant Citing Doctrine of Estoppel and Strict Adherence to Clause 15”
Kiran Raj
Punjab and Haryana High Court Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel, dismissed a writ petition challenging the selection process for the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge under the Haryana Superior Judicial Service. The petitioner’s grievance pertained to the prescription of minimum qualifying marks under Clause 15 of the recruitment advertisement and the refusal to grant relaxation or grace marks.
The Bench held that the petitioner, having voluntarily participated in the selection process and failed to secure the required marks, could not later contest the validity of the process. The Court, referring to the petitioner’s plea for judicial intervention in the form of awarding grace marks, stated, “The law countenances no preferential treatment or ad hoc relaxation in favour of an individual, particularly when such relaxation has neither statutory sanction nor any reasonable nexus with the avowed objective of securing meritorious appointments.”
The Court further recorded that the petitioner’s plea was “essentially founded on a paradox asserting a prerogative, on another hand, which is beyond the legal framework.”
The present matter arose from the recruitment to the Haryana Superior Judicial Service initiated through an advertisement dated 16 July 2015 by the Registrar (Recruitment) of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The advertisement was issued pursuant to Rule 6(1)(c) of the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007, which stipulates that 25 percent of posts shall be filled by direct recruitment from eligible advocates based on a written examination and viva voce conducted by the High Court.
Clause 15 of the advertisement prescribed that candidates securing 40 percent or more in each paper would be called for viva voce, subject to the High Court’s discretion to shortlist candidates up to three times the number of vacancies. Furthermore, candidates would only be considered to have successfully qualified the examination if they obtained at least 50 percent marks (45 percent for SC/ST/BC category candidates) in aggregate across the written and viva voce tests.
The petitioner applied under this recruitment and, following the written examination, was provisionally shortlisted for the viva voce. The provisional result declared on 31 July 2017 was subject to the resolution of discrepancies, pursuant to which the petitioner and five others, including Respondent Nos. 5 and 6, were allowed to participate in the viva voce held on 27 September 2017.
Following the viva voce and the final result declared on 16 November 2018, the petitioner was found to have secured 467 marks out of 1000, falling short of the prescribed aggregate qualifying marks. The appointing authority, vide order dated 21 December 2018, appointed Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition in 2021.
The petitioner challenged Clause 15 as ultra vires Articles 233 and 309 of the Constitution of India and the 2007 Rules, arguing that no power existed to prescribe minimum qualifying marks through an advertisement in the absence of such a stipulation in the Rules. The petitioner alternatively submitted that even if Clause 15 were found to be valid, this Court should exercise its plenary jurisdiction to grant relaxation or grace marks in view of the marginal shortfall.
The petitioner contended that granting grace marks would be justified to prevent injustice and argued that Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 had been improperly accommodated through relaxation, thereby vitiating the selection process.
In response, learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 submitted that the petitioner lacked locus standi, having failed to meet the prescribed qualifying marks. It was argued that Clause 15 was within the High Court’s powers under Rule 7 of the 2007 Rules and that the petitioner, having participated without protest, could not now seek to impugn the conditions of the process. Respondent No. 5 also opposed the petition, reiterating that the petitioner’s claims were belated and lacked merit.
The Court examined the petitioner’s argument challenging Clause 15. The Bench stated, “Where specific provisions are made in the Rules framed under Article 309, it would not be open to the High Court to issue administrative directions inconsistent with the mandate of the Rules. On the other hand, in cases where the Rules are silent, it is open to the High Court to issue a Full Court Resolution.” Relying on the judgment in Ramesh Kumar vs. High Court of Delhi & others, the Court recorded, “In case, no procedure is prescribed by the rules, the competent authority while laying down the norms for selection may prescribe for the tests and further specify the minimum Bench Marks for written test as well as for viva-voce.”
The Bench found that the 2007 Rules were silent on the question of minimum qualifying marks, thereby leaving room for administrative supplementation. The Court observed, “It is therefore a jurisprudential canon that where the principal statutory provisions and the extant regulatory framework governing the selection process are silent on a particular aspect thereof, the High Court, in the exercise of its administrative authority as the appointing body, is imbued with the inherent power to supplement such deficiencies.”
On the petitioner’s plea for grace marks, the Court noted that the petitioner’s request had no statutory backing. The Bench stated, “The law countenances no preferential treatment or ad hoc relaxation in favour of an individual, particularly when such relaxation has neither statutory sanction nor any reasonable nexus with the avowed objective of securing meritorious appointments.”
Further, the Court referred to Abhimeet Sinha & others vs. High Court of Judicature of Patna & others, recording that “the prescription of minimum cut off is not perceived to be of such a nature that it reeks of irrationality or was capricious and/or without any adequate determining principle.”
The Bench also recorded that even on the question of waiver and estoppel, the petitioner was barred from raising this challenge. Citing Tajvir Singh Sodi and others vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, the Court observed, “It is trite that candidates, having taken part in the selection process without any demur or protest, cannot challenge the same after having been declared unsuccessful. The candidates cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time.”
The Court also rejected the argument of alleged relaxation afforded to Respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The Bench found no evidence of such relaxation and stated that Clause 15 was uniformly applied.
On the petitioner’s plea invoking equitable jurisdiction, the Court noted that “grace marks or rounding off of marks is impermissible unless such power exists, expressly.” It further stated, “When the words of statute are clear, plain or unambiguous, i.e. the same are susceptible to only one meaning, a Court of law is bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences flowing therefrom.”
The Bench dismissed the petition in its entirety and recorded, “The plea raised by the petitioner is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs.” The Court thus upheld the appointments of Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 and declined the petitioner’s prayer for relaxation or revaluation.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: R.N. Lohan
For the Respondents: Vikas Chatrath, Preet Arora, Tanya Sehga, Puneet Bali, Aakash Sharma
Case Title: Rajesh Gupta vs. Punjab and Haryana High Court and others
Neutral Citation Number: 2025:PHHC:036129-DB
Case Number: CWP-17640-2021 (O&M)
Bench: Chief Justice Sheel Nagu, Justice Sumeet Goel
[Read/Download order]
