1.9 Marks stand between a Dalit Woman and the Judiciary: Supreme Court urges HC to "Sympathetically Consider" relaxation of Cut-Off for SC Candidates in Civil Judge Recruitment

In a ruling that carries significant weight for reserved category candidates navigating razor-thin eligibility margins, the Supreme Court has intervened in the case of a Scheduled Caste woman who missed the cut-off for Civil Judge (Junior Division) recruitment in Haryana by a mere 1.9 marks, directing the Punjab & Haryana High Court to give sympathetic consideration to a plea for relaxation of the minimum qualifying threshold, even as 30 vacancies in the SC category remain unfilled.

The dispute traces its origins to the Haryana Public Service Commission's January 2024 advertisement for Civil Judge (Junior Division) recruitment, which prescribed a minimum of 45% marks, equivalent to 495 out of 1100, in the mains examination for Scheduled Caste candidates. Petitioner Diksha Kalson scored 493.10 marks, falling short by 1.9 marks, and was consequently excluded from the selection process. Her grievance ran deeper than the arithmetic: she alleged that one of her answers in the English paper had been awarded zero marks despite being correct, an assessment, she contended, that authoritative voices on the English language had validated in her favour. When she sought re-evaluation, she ran headlong into Clause 33 of the advertisement, which expressly barred it.

The High Court dismissed her writ petition, holding that having appeared in the examination, she was estopped from challenging that very clause. She carried her fight to the Supreme Court, where Senior Advocate Sanjay R. Hegde placed before the bench a fact that sharpened the stakes considerably, against 39 SC category vacancies, only 9 candidates had been recommended for appointment, leaving 30 posts vacant.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi found no infirmity in Clause 33 itself and declined to disturb the bar on re-evaluation. However, the court pivoted on the larger question of unfilled vacancies, recognising that the situation called for administrative rather than judicial remedy. Granting liberty to Kalson and all other SC candidates ranked above her on the merit list to approach the administrative side of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, the bench made its expectation plain, "We request the High Court to consider the representation sympathetically, regardless of the view taken on the judicial side in the impugned judgments." 

The distinction was deliberate and significant, the Top Court was not overturning the judicial finding, but was separately activating the High Court's administrative authority to consider a cut-off relaxation in the face of a glaring vacancy crisis. The Special Leave Petition was accordingly disposed of.

Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.