Rajasthan Judicial Service| Non-Fixation Of Cut-Off Marks For Persons With Benchmark Disability Not Illegal: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court observed that the non-fixation of cut-off marks for persons with benchmark disability is neither arbitrary nor violative of any of the Fundamental Rights of a candidate.
The Bench reiterated that candidates who consciously participated in the selection process cannot question the advertisement or the selection methodology under the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, after being declared unsuccessful in the Preliminary Examinations. The Court clarified that the reservation for Persons with disabilities was treated as a Horizontal Reservation under Clause (1) of Article 16, not a Vertical reservation under Clause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution.
A Bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed, “The Persons with benchmark disabilities for being adjusted in the category for which he or she had applied, had to secure the minimum cut off marks fixed for such category under which he or she had applied. Such fixation of cut off marks for other categories and non fixation of cut off marks for the category of persons with benchmark disability could neither be said to be arbitrary nor violative of any of the Fundamental Rights of the appellants.”
Sr. Advocate Sridhar Potaraju appeared for the appellant, while Sr. Advocate Pinky Anand represented the respondent.
The Rajasthan High Court in 2021 issued an advertisement for the direct recruitment of Civil Judges and Judicial Magistrates. A candidate with 40% permanent visual impairment applied under the reserved category for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD). The candidate participated in the preliminary examination but was declared unsuccessful.
However, the cut-off marks for the PwBD category were not disclosed, prompting the candidate to challenge the recruitment process. The candidate argued that the recruitment process was discriminatory and violative of the fundamental rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court noted that the reservation for PwBD candidates was categorised as an overall horizontal reservation, not a compartmentalised one. The Bench clarified that in cases of overall horizontal reservations, cut-off marks for each category were not necessarily required to be disclosed separately unless specified by the relevant rules or statutes.
The Bench relied on the decision in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) wherein the Apex Court had aptly explained the concept of Vertical Reservations’ and ‘Horizontal Reservations.’
Based on the same, the Court held, “There remains no doubt that the reservation for persons with disabilities would be relatable to Clause (1) of Article 16 and the persons selected against this quota will be placed in appropriate category i.e. if he/she belongs to Scheduled Category, he/she will be placed in that category by making necessary adjustments, and if he/she belongs to open category, necessary adjustments will be made in the open category.”
Relying on the advertisement, the Court explained that the reservation for women (widow or divorcee) was a compartmentalised reservation, whereas the reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities was an overall reservation.
Consequently, the Court observed, “Apart from the fact that there was nothing provided in the advertisement for the fixation of cut off marks for the Persons with benchmark disabilities, who fall under the Overall Horizontal Reservation, the learned counsels for the appellant have also failed to point out from the Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 2010 under which the recruitment process was undertaken, that such fixation of cut off marks for the Persons with benchmark disabilities was mandatory..”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title: Rekha Sharma v. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 615)
Appearance:
Appellant: Sr. Advocate Sridhar Potaraju; Advocates Sudhanshu S. Pandey, Ishat Singh, Nisha Pandey, Aayush, Maitreya Mahaley, Lalit Mohan, Yimyanger Longkumer, Niharika Singh, Sai Swaroop, Yashika Varshney and Sangeeta Verma; AOR Gaichangpou Gangme and Sameer Shrivastava
Respondent: Sr. Advocate Pinky Anand; Advocates Samrat Pasricha, Saudamini Sharma and Asees Jasmine Kaur; AOR Mukul Kumar
