The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday rejected a petition which argued that minimum marks cannot be prescribed for selecting judges to the district judiciary [Rajesh Gupta v Punjab and Haryana High Court and others]..The Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel emphasized that it is imperative that only persons with a prescribed minimum of qualities or capacity be selected lest the standard of judiciary gets diluted by appointment of sub-standard candidates. “It falls squarely within the prerogative of the selecting authority to stipulate criteria that ensures the recruitment of candidates of the highest caliber, particularly for a post of significant judicial responsibility since the power to determine the essential qualifications for a given position in an intrinsic attribute of the selecting authority,” the Court said..In this regard, the Bench also relied upon a Supreme Court ruling Which had held that the prescription of minimum marks for viva-voce in the judiciary exams was valid.“The dicta would apply mutatis mutandis to a condition prescribing minimum qualifying marks in the written exam as also the aggregate of the written exam and the viva voce,” the High Court said..The petition before the Court challenged the selection process for the Haryana Superior Judicial Services. The plea filed by judiciary aspirant Rajesh Gupta pertained to the posts for which results were declared in 2018.The candidates in the judiciary exam were required to achieve at least 500 marks out of the 1,000 aggregate marks in the written test and viva voce.Gupta, who fell short of the same by 33 marks, argued that since Article 309 of the Constitution of India and the rules framed under in 2007 do not envisage or prescribe any threshold of minimum marks being a prerequisite for final selection, the High Court could not have done so for the selections.He also asked the Court to grant relaxation by way of grace marks..However, the Court held that the 2007 Rules give the High Court the authority to regulate the selection process.“This plenary discretion encompasses the power to determine the mode and manner of conducting examinations, including the prerogative necessary to uphold the standards of merit and suitability,” the Bench said.The Court also emphasized that once a candidate has voluntarily applied for and participated in a selection process, he is interdicted from subsequently challenging its legality or fairness of the process.It also rejected the request for grace marks, observing that the eligibility criteria ought to be strictly adhered to. Consequently, the petition was dismissed..Advocate RN Lohan represented the petitioner.Advocate Vikas Chatrath, Preet Arora and Tanya Sehgal represented the High Court.Senior Advocate Puneet Bali with advocate Aakash Sharma represented a selected candidate. .[Read Judgment]
