Detention of Petitioner Would Amount to Pre-Trial Punishment: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail in Dowry Harassment Case Evidence Insufficient to Support Claims: Orissa High Court Affirms Appellate Court’s Reversal in Wrongful Confinement and Defamation Case Harmonious Interpretation of PWDV Act and Senior Citizens Act is Crucial: Kerala High Court in Domestic Violence Case Welfare of the Child is Paramount: Allahabad High Court Awards Custody to Biological Mother in Habeas Corpus Petition Due Process Followed Under Rule 3(b); No Error in Appointment Procedure: Calcutta High Court Denies Review in Temporary MMR Case Legitimacy Conferred by Section 16(1) of HMA: Madras High Court Upholds Partial Partition Claim Kerala High Court Voids Property Tax Demand Notices on Telecom Towers for Exceeding Limitation Period” Karnataka High Court directs government to pay compensation to long-term contractual employees in lieu of reinstatement and regularization. Execution Reports Are Crucial Before Issuing Non-Bailable Warrants: High Court of Jharkhand Quashes Warrants High Court Affirms J&K Bank’s Autonomy in Recruitment Policies, Suggests Inclusion of Ex-Servicemen” IT Act - Non-Issuance of Draft Assessment Order Renders Final Order Void, Delhi High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Rs. 2500 Crore Land Demand, Slams State for 'Commercialization Over Public Interest "Amendments Must Be Based on New Evidence, Not Repetitive Objections," Rules Himachal High Court No Error in Dismissing Petition to Call Original Agreement' in Cheque Bounce Case: Rajasthan High Court Affirms Trial Court’s Discretion Allahabad High Court Rejects Premature Divorce Petition Filed Within a Year of Marriage Allahabad High Court Rejects Premature Divorce Petition Filed Within a Year of Marriage Supreme Court Affirms Right to Horizontal Reservation for Disabled Candidates in Judicial Exams Patna High Court Upholds Rejection of Vehicle Release in Liquor Seizure Case, Cites Statutory Bar on Jurisdiction Pendency of Several Criminal Cases Cannot Be the Basis to Refuse Bail: P&H High Court in Counterfeit Currency Case “Consistency in Dying Declarations is Key to Conviction,” Rules Andhra Pradesh High Court Bombay High Court Quashes Reassessment Notice: Sanction Not Obtained as Per Statutory Requirement Beneficial Legislation Like the DV Act Justifies Interim Relief Even After Prolonged Separation: Calcutta HC Defendant's Causal Approach Not Sufficient: Delhi High Court Dismisses Leave to Defend Application in Recovery Suit Mental Distance Between ‘May Be True’ and ‘Must Be True’” Requires Clear Evidence: High Court Overturns Conviction Leasehold Rights Expire with Lease Period: J&K High Court in Case Against J&K State Financial Corporation High Court Quashes Post-Retirement Pay Reduction: Emphasizes Natural Justice Revenue Authorities Have No Jurisdiction Over Title Disputes: Karnataka High Court Reaffirms 1938 Land Acquisition for Industrial Use NDPS | Extended Custody Unnecessary Where Seizure Is Intermediate and Investigation Concluded: Kerala High Court Adoption Severed All Ties with Biological Family – Madras High Court Upholds Legal Heirship Under Hindu Adoptions Act” Availability of Alternative Remedies Must Be Exhausted Before Seeking Judicial Intervention, MP High Court in Debt Recovery Case Balancing Speedy Trial and Justice: Additional Evidence Allowed,” says Orissa High Court in Death Penalty Case Recipient of Goods Can Seek Advance Ruling Under GST, Rules Rajasthan High Court Tender Terms and Conditions: Not Absolute, Cancellation Allowed in Public Interest: Telangana High Court Cancelled Tender for Redevelopment of Modern Abattoir Facility Supreme Court: “Mere Directorship Does Not Imply Liability” in National Housing Bank Case Bail is the Rule and Jail is an Exception: PH High Court Affirms in Suicide Abetment Case Taxation Law l Period Spent Before Incorrect Forum Must Be Excluded from Limitation Calculation: Uttarakhand High Court in Refund Claim Case Timeliness in Alimony Payments Must be Maintained Despite Appeals: Orissa High Court Victim’s Deposition is of Sterling Quality in Spite of Her Tender Age and the Corroborative Medical Evidence: High Court of Sikkim Upholds Conviction in Aggravated Sexual Assault Case” No Decree Under Section 31 Can Be Passed: Raj High Court Overturns Lower Court’s Decree in Financial Corporation Case High Court Rules in Favor of Shehnaaz Gill, Declares Agreement with Sajjan Duhan Void Due to Misrepresentation No Clear Mens Rea or Direct Instigation : Orissa High Court Quashes Abetment to Suicide Charges

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

15 November 2024 1:23 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.

Similar News