Punjab & Haryana High Court refuses relief to candidate who failed judiciary exam by o.6%

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the plea of Bhuvan Goel, who failed the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Examination 2023-24 by 6.75 marks.

• Bhuvan Goel secured 543.25 marks (49.38%) out of the total 1,100 in the Written Examination and Viva-Voce but required 550 marks (50%) to qualify as a civil judge or judicial magistrate.

• He argued that despite scoring 513.50 marks out of 900 in the written (main) examination, he was awarded only 29.75 marks out of 200 in the viva-voce.

• The Division Bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sudhir Singh emphasized that judicial recruitment differs from other civil service recruitment because of the unique nature of judicial responsibilities.

• The Court stated, “Emphasis upon viva-voce to a little more extent than other recruitments is necessary to ensure that persons of very high level of integrity, aptitude, character, and merit adorn the judicial offices.”

• It further observed, “Whether a candidate has an aptitude, inclination, and character to become a judge cannot alone be determined by written test.”

• The Bench held that the petitioner was fully aware of the recruitment rules, including the requirement to secure 50% aggregate marks, at the time of entering the process.

• It remarked, “The rules of the game were not changed after the game had begun, and the principle of estoppel applies to the petitioner.”

• Acknowledging that candidates put in their best efforts, the Court stated, “Every candidate does his best. But that alone cannot be a good reason to interfere if a candidate fails to secure marks in line with his or her expectations.”

• The Court explained that Goel’s low score of 29.75 in viva-voce reduced his aggregate marks below the required 50%, leading to his disqualification.

“It was only because the petitioner secured 29.75 marks out of 200 marks in the viva-voce that relegated him below the 50 percent aggregate marks, and, therefore, this Court is afraid that the petitioner cannot be helped,” the Bench concluded.

• Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition.

• Advocate Nayandeep Rana represented the petitioner.

• Senior Advocate Sanjeev Sharma and Advocate Shubreet Kaur Saron appeared for the Punjab and Haryana High Court, while Advocate Balvinder Sangwan represented the Haryana Public Service Commission.