CLAT-PG Score not Valid for Public Employment to Legal Posts: Delhi HC Quashes NHAI’s Illegal Recruitment Criteria [Read Order]

The Delhi High Court recently held that the score obtained by a candidate in the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT-PG) cannot be adopted as a criterion for public employment to legal posts, quashing a recruitment notification issued by the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI).

The decision came against a writ petition filed by Shannu Baghel challenging a notification dated 11 August 2025 through which the NHAI had invited applications for engagement of Young Professionals (Legal) on contract basis. The petition primarily surrounded the prescription of “merit in CLAT-PG score 2022 onwards” as the sole basis of recruitment towards the posts in the NHAI.

Shannu Baghel, appearing in person along with Ganpat Ram, Gorang Goyal, Aakash, Saksham Kumar, Disha Gutpa, Shubham Prajapati and Jitendra Kumar, submitted that the impugned notification violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as selection based solely on CLAT-PG scores was arbitrary and excludes law graduates who may be equally or more meritorious.

Citing the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976), it was submitted that there existed no rational nexus with the suitability required for employment in NHAI as the CLAT-PG examination is designed for admission to postgraduate law courses and not for assessing employability in public posts.

Additionally, it was argued that limiting the selection pool to those who had achieved merit in CLAT-PG score 2022 onwards affected the opportunity for law graduates who had attempted the exam prior.

The Union of India was represented by Dr. Manika Aroa, Subhro Deep Saha, Prabhat Kumar, Anamika Thakur and Abhinav Verma. The NHAI was represented by Ankur Mittal and Rabaica Jaiswal.

On behalf of NHAI, it was argued that CLAT-PG is a national-level standardized examination conducted by the Consortium of National Law Universities and widely accepted as a credible test of legal aptitude.

It was further submitted that reliance on CLAT-PG ensured transparency, uniformity and minimizes bias in recruitment. The respondents contended that holding a separate recruitment examination would involve heavy costs and administrative burden and that several other public sector undertakings also adopt CLAT-PG scores as a basis for recruitment to legal posts.

The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that the prescription required only that a candidate should have appeared in CLAT-PG 2022 onwards, without even fixing a benchmark score.

The Bench observed that such a criterion would render a candidate with zero marks eligible while excluding another who never appeared in CLAT-PG, thereby making the prescription irrational. The Court held that the criteria for pursuing higher studies and those for adjudging suitability for public employment cannot be equated, as suitability for employment may demand qualities not necessarily tested in CLAT-PG.

The Court further observed that while CLAT-PG may be a nationally recognized examination covering various branches of law, its purpose is limited to admissions to postgraduate law courses. Adopting it as a measure of suitability for employment is therefore without any rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved.

The Delhi High Court further emphasized that other central and state universities conduct their own selection processes for postgraduate admissions, and to rely exclusively on CLAT-PG would be discriminatory against candidates from other central or state Universities.

Accordingly, allowed the writ petition and quashed the NHAI notification dated 11 August 2025.

Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates