High Court Upholds 50% Qualifying Mark for Judicial Selections in Haryana

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has completely shut the door on aspirants hoping to become judges without meeting the mandatory 50% qualifying marks in selection tests.

"You can't change the rules just because you didn't make the cut," said a practicing advocate at the High Court, summarizing the court's verdict. 

The ruling came after a candidate who fell short of the qualifying marks in the Additional District and Sessions Judge (ADJ) exam challenged the selection criteria, arguing that the 50% threshold shouldn't apply in competitive exams. 

Too late to complain

Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel, who heard the case, weren't impressed by the timing of the challenge.

"Why didn't you object before taking the exam?" seemed to be the court's response to the petitioner who only raised concerns after failing to qualify. 

The judgment pointed out that having voluntarily participated in the selection process without initially objecting to the criteria, the petitioner couldn't later cry foul just because the results weren't in his favor. 

"You can't have your cake and eat it too," remarked a court observer who has followed similar cases.

No room for "grace marks"

The petitioner had also sought "grace marks" to bridge the gap to the 50% threshold – a request the court firmly rejected. 

In its response, the bench stated that giving extra marks would violate the basic principles of fairness and equality in government appointments. 

"These aren't school exams where teachers might add a mark or two out of sympathy," said a senior judicial officer who requested anonymity. "We're selecting people who will decide others' fates."

The court noted that the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007, don't allow for any relaxation or rounding off of marks unless specifically permitted. 

Quality over quantity

Throughout the judgment, the court repeatedly stressed that judicial appointments can't compromise on quality.

"The requirement of attaining a minimum of 50% marks is not a mere procedural formality," the bench stated. It's "an indispensable prerequisite" for ensuring only qualified candidates enter the judiciary. 

The court backed the selection committee's right to set high standards, especially for positions that carry significant responsibility. 

A former judge, speaking off the record, supported the verdict: "Would you want someone who couldn't even score 50% in the entrance exam operating on you if they were a surgeon? Then why accept less for someone who'll decide criminal and civil cases?" What happens next?

While this particular challenge has been dismissed, legal experts suggest the debate over qualifying marks in competitive exams isn't going away. 

"There's always tension between having absolute standards and relative ranking in selections," noted Dr. Priya Sharma, who teaches administrative law at a Chandigarh university. "But for judges, the courts have consistently favored quality thresholds." For now, judicial aspirants in Haryana have been put on notice: 50% isn't just a target – it's the minimum entry ticket.