The Supreme Court has asked the Punjab & Haryana High Court to sympathetically consider relaxing the 45% minimum marks requirement for SC candidates in the recruitment of Civil Judge (Junior Division) conducted by the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC). Key Developments Petitioner Diksha Kalson , an SC candidate, missed the cut‑off of 495 marks by just 1.9 marks (scored 493.10/1100) in the January 2024 exam. She alleged that a correct answer in the English paper was awarded zero marks, affecting her total. After her writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on the basis of Clause 33 , she approached the Supreme Court via a Special Leave Petition . The bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, found no fault with Clause 33 but noted that only 9 SC candidates were recommended against 39 total vacancies . The Court directed that any candidate placed higher than Kalson on the merit list may file a representation to the administrative side of the High Court seeking relaxation of the minimum 45% marks condition . Important Facts Exam advertised in January 2024 by HPSC for 39 Civil Judge (Junior Division) posts. SC reservation quota: 30 vacancies remain unfilled. Petitioner’s representation was dismissed on procedural grounds, prompting Supreme Court intervention. The Supreme Court’s order is a procedural liberty, not a substantive change in the reservation policy. UPSC Relevance This case touches upon several core UPSC topics: Reservation Policy (GS2) : Demonstrates how reservation thresholds are applied in state recruitment and the legal challenges that can arise. Judicial Review (GS2) : Highlights the hierarchy of courts, the role of SLP , and the limits of contractual clauses like Clause 33. Administrative Law (GS2) : Shows the procedural avenues available to aggrieved candidates, including representations to the administrative side of a High Court. Public Service Recruitment (GS2) : Provides a real‑world example of how state commissions conduct examinations and enforce eligibility criteria. Way Forward For aspirants and policymakers, the following steps are advisable: State commissions should ensure transparent marking schemes and allow limited re‑evaluation to avoid litigation. Reservation thresholds must be periodically reviewed to balance merit and social justice, especially when vacancy‑to‑quota ratios are skewed. Candidates should be aware of procedural remedies, including filing representations before the administrative wing of the High Court and, if needed, approaching the Supreme Court via an SLP . Legal scholars should monitor how courts interpret clauses like Clause 33, as they set precedents for future recruitment disputes.