The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in CWP No. 18757 of 2025 (Rushil Jindal v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and others), decided on 22.09.2025, dismissed a writ petition challenging the minimum marks qualification prescribed under Clause 8.4 of the rules governing recruitment to the post of Additional District Judge (ADJ). The Court upheld the High Court’s power to prescribe minimum qualifying marks as a valid exercise of its authority under Article 233 of the Constitution.
Background
The petitioner, Rushil Jindal, challenged the provision contained in Clause 8.4 of the ADJ recruitment rules, which prescribed minimum qualifying marks that candidates were required to obtain. The petitioner contended that the prescription of minimum marks was arbitrary and ultra vires the rules governing the recruitment process.
The Court’s Analysis
The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Dr. Kavita Kamboj (2024) 7 SCC 103, which had settled the question of the High Court’s power in relation to the recruitment of judicial officers. The Supreme Court had held that the High Court, being vested with the power of appointment of District Judges under Article 233 of the Constitution (in consultation with the Governor), possesses the incidental power to regulate the process of selection, including the prescription of minimum qualifying criteria. The High Court observed that the prescription of minimum marks serves a legitimate purpose: it ensures that only candidates who meet a threshold standard of competence are considered for appointment to the higher judicial service.
Key Principles
The decision reaffirms that the High Court’s power under Article 233 of the Constitution is not merely formal. It encompasses the substantive power to regulate the entire selection process for District Judges, including the authority to prescribe minimum marks, cut-off criteria, and other eligibility conditions. The prescription of such criteria is an integral part of maintaining standards in the judicial service and cannot be characterised as arbitrary.
The Order
The writ petition was dismissed. The Court upheld the validity of Clause 8.4 prescribing minimum marks for ADJ recruitment.
Mrs. Munisha Gandhi, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Manveen Narang, Advocate, appeared for the Respondent, i.e., the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.