Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

Supreme Court Affirms Right to Horizontal Reservation for Disabled Candidates in Judicial Exams

15 November 2024 7:54 PM

By: sayum


Candidates with Benchmark Disabilities Must Be Given Fair Representation Across Categories, Rules Supreme Court. On October 25, 2024, the Supreme Court of India, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, issued a significant interim order in Tishan Jangid v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan & Anr., Writ Petition (Civil) Diary No. 49998/2024. The Court directed the Rajasthan High Court to allow the petitioner, Tishan Jangid, a candidate with 60% locomotor disability, to participate in the ongoing interview process for the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examinations, 2024. This order underlined the principle of horizontal reservation for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PWBDs), ensuring equal opportunities for such candidates within their respective categories.

Tishan Jangid, the petitioner, challenged the denial of a distinct cut-off for PWBDs in the main examination results for the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examinations, 2024. Despite securing qualifying marks, Jangid was excluded from the interview stage as he did not meet the general cut-off for his category. The petitioner argued that this exclusion violated his rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

Horizontal vs. Vertical Reservations: The Supreme Court reiterated that horizontal reservations, such as those for PWBDs, are distinct from vertical reservations and must be applied across all categories. Drawing from Indira Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), the Court stated:

"Horizontal reservations cut across vertical reservations, ensuring candidates are adjusted within their categories while retaining fair representation."

Violation of Constitutional Rights: The denial of a separate cut-off for PWBDs was deemed a violation of Articles 14 (Right to Equality), 16 (Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment), and 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty). The Court observed:

"The refusal to apply a distinct cut-off for candidates with benchmark disabilities undermines their right to equal opportunity and non-discrimination."

Interim Relief and Precedent: The Court drew parallels with an earlier order in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 710 of 2024, involving a blind candidate, where similar interim relief was granted. The bench directed:

"The petitioner shall be called for interview as part of the ongoing interview process and duly assessed by the Committee."

The Supreme Court allowed the petition in part, ordering the respondents to include Tishan Jangid in the interview process concluding on October 26, 2024. The respondents were also directed to submit a counter affidavit by November 1, 2024, and the matter was listed for further hearing on November 4, 2024.

 

This decision reinforced the necessity of implementing horizontal reservations for PWBDs to ensure their inclusion and fair assessment across all categories in public service examinations. It upheld the principles of equality and non-discrimination enshrined in the Constitution, aligning with legislative mandates for the rights of persons with disabilities.

Date of Decision: October 25, 2024

Tishan Jangid v. High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan & Anr.

Latest Legal News