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.
Exam 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.