The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently declined to intervene on behalf of a candidate, Bhuvan Goel, who failed the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Examination 2023-24 by 6.75 marks.

Goel scored 543.25 marks (49.38%) out of 1,100 in the Written Examination and Viva-Voce, falling short of the minimum requirement of 550 marks (50%) to qualify for recruitment as a civil judge or judicial magistrate.

Despite securing 513.50 marks out of 900 in the written (main) examination, Goel received only 29.75 marks out of 200 in the viva voce, leading him to challenge the results in court.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sudhir Singh emphasized that the viva voce plays a critical role in assessing judicial service candidates, as written tests alone cannot determine their suitability for the position.

The Bench highlighted that judicial service recruitment is distinct from other government posts due to the unique responsibilities and powers associated with the role. It stressed the necessity of emphasizing viva voce to ensure that candidates possess the requisite integrity, aptitude, character, and merit to serve as judges. “Whether a candidate has the aptitude, inclination, and character to become a judge cannot be determined solely by a written test,” the Court observed.

The Court also noted that Goel was fully aware of the rules, including the requirement to secure 50% aggregate marks in the written and viva-voce stages. It rejected his contention, stating that the principle of estoppel applied, as the rules had not changed mid-process. “The petitioner entered the recruitment process with open eyes and cannot claim to have been taken by surprise,” the Court added.

Acknowledging that candidates strive to perform their best, the Bench clarified that this alone does not justify interference if their scores fall short of expectations. It concluded that Goel’s failure to achieve the required aggregate marks was due to his low viva-voce score and expressed its inability to grant relief.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the plea. Advocate Nayandeep Rana represented the petitioner, while Senior Advocate Sanjeev Sharma and Advocate Shubreet Kaur Saron appeared for the High Court. Advocate Balvinder Sangwan represented the Haryana Public Service Commission.