Screening Test Without Legal Subjects for ADA Post Defeats the Purpose of Legal Education: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes HPSC Recruitment Advertisement

“When law is the qualification, testing general knowledge alone is not selection—it is exclusion dressed as procedure.” – Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a powerful and precedent-setting judgment struck down the screening test syllabus and advertisement issued by the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) for recruitment to the post of Assistant District Attorney (ADA), declaring it arbitrary, constitutionally impermissible, and in violation of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution. The judgment came in a bunch of connected writ petitions, led by Lakhan Singh & Others vs. State of Haryana and Others, where candidates had challenged the exclusion of legal subjects from the screening stage of the recruitment process.

“Opportunity Cannot Be a Mirage; It Must Be Real, Accessible, and Based on Merit”: High Court Slams Screening Test That Eliminated 85% Without Testing Legal Acumen

Delivering a scathing rebuke of the recruitment method adopted by the Commission under Advertisement No. 18 of 2025, the Court held that excluding law subjects from the screening test for a legally specialized post like ADA “renders the process legally unsustainable”. Justice Sandeep Moudgil observed that such exclusion was arbitrary, lacked rational nexus with the post, and was framed in violation of mandatory consultation requirements under the Constitution and statutory regulations.

"The very premise of professional legal education is defeated when candidates possessing law degrees are filtered out through tests that don’t assess their legal knowledge at all,” the Court remarked.

“Exclusionary Mechanisms That Shut the Door on Legal Aspirants Without Testing Law Are Constitutionally Untenable”

At the heart of the case was the screening test syllabus, notified by the HPSC on 08 August 2025, which completely omitted legal subjects, focusing instead on general awareness, reasoning, current affairs, and mathematics, for a post that mandates a professional law degree and enrollment with the Bar Council. The Court held that this dismantled the very purpose of recruiting legal professionals and amounted to an unfair and irrational elimination process.

“A screening test that bypasses the assessment of core legal competencies ceases to be a measure of merit and instead becomes an arbitrary mechanism of exclusion,” observed the Court.

“A Constitutional Injury, Not Just a Procedural Flaw”: Court Finds Violation of Articles 14 and 16(1) in Recruitment Method

The Court noted that by setting a general knowledge-based screening test as the first stage, and calling only four times the number of advertised posts to the next stage (which included legal testing), over 85% of candidates—many potentially meritorious—were denied even the chance to be considered.

"This is not a rejection after evaluation—it is a denial of opportunity itself," said the Court, calling it a “constitutional injury.”

Quoting Article 16(1), the Court reminded the State that “equal opportunity in public employment is not a procedural ideal; it is a constitutional command.” The Court found the process to be discriminatory in effect, as it arbitrarily filtered candidates on criteria unrelated to the essential qualifications for the job.

“Convenience of Commission Cannot Override Candidates’ Constitutional Rights”: Administrative Justification Rejected

Responding to the Commission’s argument that the exclusion of law subjects was justified due to the logistical burden of handling 27,000+ candidates, the Court rejected this outright.

“Convenience cannot be the compass of constitutionality. When fairness is compromised for efficiency, the process collapses,” the Court declared.

The Court added, “Such an argument only indicates that the State is running away or shrugging off its responsibility to provide equal opportunity in a transparent and fair manner.”

“Sudden Shift Without Consultation Violates Constitutional Mandate”: Failure to Consult Government Under Article 320(3)(b) Invalidates Process

A critical finding was the non-compliance with Article 320(3)(b) of the Constitution and Clauses 41 and 42 of the Haryana Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulations, 1973. The Court found that the Commission altered the syllabus and recruitment methodology unilaterally, without the mandatory prior consultation with the State Government.

“The process of selection is not a procedural sidebar but an integral part of appointment,” the Court said, holding that “consultation is not optional—it is a constitutional obligation.”

“Law Without Legality, Procedure Without Fairness, and Discretion Without Accountability Are Anathema to Constitutional Governance”

In its concluding remarks, the Court condemned the process as a travesty of meritocracy, and a violation of the basic structure of the Constitution.

“The State, as a model employer, cannot adopt discretion untethered from reason. Screening out candidates without testing their legal competence is not only irrational but also constitutionally indefensible,” the Court held.

It added, “Every recruitment notification is a beacon of hope for thousands. The State cannot snuff out that hope through flawed design or administrative haste.”

The Court declared that:

• The announcement dated 08.08.2025 and Advertisement No. 18 of 2025 are quashed.

• The screening test pattern is arbitrary, disconnected from the job profile, and violative of constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 16(1).

• The State Government and the Commission are directed to initiate a fresh recruitment process, ensuring:

  • Inclusion of legal subjects in the screening test

  • Mandatory consultation with the State Government as per Article 320(3)(b) and relevant regulations

  • Fair and rational shortlisting methods that align with the nature of the ADA post

“Opportunity Must Not Be a Casualty of Procedure”: A Judgment That Restores Faith in Constitutional Recruitment Standards

This ruling sends a strong and clear message to all public recruiting bodies: discretion must be exercised within the constitutional bounds of fairness, legality, and rationality. The Court has not only invalidated a flawed recruitment scheme but has also reinforced the principle that public employment is a constitutional right—not a bureaucratic privilege.

As the Court poignantly put it:

“In matters so vital, reason must be the compass to bring justice to all candidates participating in public service. The gateway to opportunity must be guarded not by arbitrary exclusion but by fair assessment.”

Date of Decision: 17 October 2025