Delhi HC to Decide on Validity of CLAT-PG Scores for NHAI Legal Recruitment

The Delhi High Court is set to deliver an essential decision on September 8, 2025, regarding whether the Common Law Admission Test (CLAT-PG) scores can form the basis for recruiting lawyers in the National Highways Authority of India (NHAI). The case has attracted significant attention from the legal fraternity, as it questions the intersection of academic entrance examinations with criteria for public employment.

Background of the Case

The controversy stems from an August 11, 2025, notification issued by NHAI, which announced the recruitment of 44 young legal professionals based on their CLAT-PG scores (2022 onwards). This unusual criterion quickly drew criticism, as CLAT-PG is traditionally designed as an entrance exam for postgraduate legal studies, not for government employment.

The petitioner, Shannu Bahgel, a practising lawyer, approached the Delhi High Court challenging the notification. Bahgel argued that using CLAT-PG scores as a benchmark for employment was arbitrary, unreasonable, and discriminatory, as it excluded a vast pool of otherwise qualified law graduates and practising advocates who had not taken CLAT-PG in recent years.

Petitioner’s Argument: CLAT-PG Not Meant for Jobs

The petitioner's central point is that the CLAT-PG examination was never intended to serve as a recruitment filter for public jobs. Instead, it evaluates candidates holding an LL.B. degree for admission into postgraduate law programmes such as LL.M.

Bahgel emphasized that NHAI’s hiring aims to engage lawyers capable of providing professional services, not to assess their eligibility for advanced legal education. The plea argued:

• There is no rational nexus between CLAT-PG's purpose and public employment requirements.

• Restricting recruitment to candidates who appeared in CLAT 2022 and subsequent editions unfairly excludes thousands of law graduates and practising advocates who did not sit for the exam.

• By relying solely on CLAT-PG scores, NHAI limits opportunities to a small group of candidates, violating fairness principles and equal access to public employment.

The plea stated: “The criteria of restricting selection exclusively based on CLAT 2022 onward (post-graduate) score is arbitrary, irrational, and has no reasonable justification.”

NHAI’s Position

During the brief hearing, counsel for NHAI requested time to seek instructions from the authorities. While NHAI has not yet provided a detailed justification, the move is seen as an attempt to simplify recruitment and ensure objectivity by relying on standardized test scores.

However, critics argue that while CLAT-PG may be a standardized and respected examination, it is not tailored to measure the skills required for practising lawyers, particularly in specialized domains such as infrastructure, contracts, and regulatory law, which are crucial for NHAI.

Delhi High Court’s Observations

A bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela heard the matter. During the preliminary discussions, the bench orally observed that the purpose of CLAT-PG is to assess academic merit for higher legal studies rather than determining suitability for public employment.

The judges indicated that using CLAT-PG scores in this context raises questions about legal validity and fairness. However, NHAI’s justification will be examined before a final decision is made. The court has scheduled a detailed hearing for September 8, 2025.

Why This Case Matters

The case has sparked broad debate in the legal community, as its outcome could set a precedent for how academic entrance exams can (or cannot) be used in government recruitment. Several key issues are at stake:

1. Fair Access to Public Employment
   Restricting eligibility only to those who took CLAT-PG from 2022 onwards may deprive many law graduates, including experienced advocates, of opportunities.

2. Purpose of Standardized Exams
   Entrance exams like CLAT-PG are designed for academic admissions, not job placements. Using them as a hiring criterion may blur the line between educational assessment and professional recruitment.

3. Impact on Recruitment Practices
   If upheld, NHAI’s approach could encourage other government agencies to adopt similar models, potentially leading to exclusionary recruitment practices.

4. Merit vs. Experience
   The case highlights the debate between relying on exam-based merit and considering professional experience, both critical in assessing a lawyer’s capability.

Broader Implications for Legal Professionals

Legal experts note that if CLAT-PG scores become a standard benchmark for recruitment in public bodies, law graduates who never planned to pursue postgraduate studies may be disadvantaged. This could create a two-tier system, where only those who invest time and resources in appearing for CLAT-PG remain eligible for specific government jobs, regardless of their professional competence.

Moreover, young advocates and graduates from regional law colleges may face challenges. CLAT-PGG tends to be dominated by candidates from national law universities (NLUs) and premier institutions, further widening the opportunity gap.

Next Steps in the Case

As the matter comes up for hearing on September 8, all eyes will be on the Delhi High Court. The judgment could either:

• Strike down NHAI’s notification as arbitrary, thereby forcing the agency to devise a new, inclusive recruitment process, or

• Uphold the notification, setting a controversial precedent for using academic entrance exams in employment.

Regardless of the outcome, the case highlights the urgent need for clearer recruitment policies in government agencies, particularly when hiring specialized professionals like lawyers.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision on whether CLAT-PG scores can serve as the basis for NHAI’s legal recruitment will have far-reaching consequences for law graduates and practising advocates nationwide. The debate centers on the fundamental principle of fair access to public employment and whether academic tests should influence professional hiring.

For now, the legal community awaits the court’s ruling, which could reshape recruitment for specialized roles in public institutions. As the bench weighs fairness, rationality, and the purpose of standardized exams, the verdict will set a crucial precedent for the intersection of education and employment in India’s legal sector.