Order XLI Rule 23A CPC | Re-Trial Necessary When Crucial Parties Impleaded In Appeal: Telangana High Court Cannot Freeze Entire Bank Account For Small Disputed Sums: Rajasthan High Court Issues Comprehensive Guidelines Against Indiscriminate Account Freezes In Cyber Crime Probes 187(3) BNSS | No Extension Of Investigation Time Without Notice To Accused: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail In NDPS Case Road Widening Under Master Plan Cannot Be Stalled For Formal Land Acquisition, Section 305 Permits Direct Removal Of Encroachments: Madhya Pradesh High Court P&H High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Over 45-Day Delay In Informing Detenu Of Right To Represent 'Sole Allegation Of Torture Cannot Stand Alone': Andhra Pradesh High Court Acquits Husband Under Section 498A IPC After Dowry Demand Disproved Seeking Corroboration To Victim's Testimony Amounts To Adding Insult To Injury: Bombay High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Offences Of Cheating & Criminal Breach Of Trust Cannot Coexist On Same Facts: Calcutta High Court Quashes FIR Over Commercial Contract Dispute "Accident Alone Is Not Proof": Delhi High Court Acquits Bus Driver In 2003 Road Fatality Case, Rules Mere Speeding Or Collision Insufficient For Section 304A IPC Mandate Of Regulations Must Be Read Into Public Notices: Kerala High Court Reverses Order Directing NMC To Reopen Portal For Medical College's PG Seat Hike Unproven 1946 Oral Sale And Subsequent School Gift Cannot Convey Valid Title Over Tribal Land: Orissa High Court Orders Compensation After 80 Years ED Can Probe Money Laundering In J&K Corruption Cases: J&K High Court Rules S. 5(1)(d) J&K PC Act Corresponds To Amended S. 7 Of Central PC Act Not Mere Lip Service: Supreme Court Quashes GST Notice Under Section 74 Lacking Foundational Facts Of Fraud Or Suppression Selling Manufactured Goods At Factory Premises Doesn't Turn 'Industrial' Land Into 'Commercial' For Stamp Duty: Supreme Court Supreme Court Orders All States To Form Dedicated SITs To Probe Fake Motor Accident Claims, Warns Insurance Top Brass Against Selective Referrals Port Trusts Not Immune From Customs Duty On Pilfered Goods: Supreme Court Upholds Notification Declaring Mumbai Port Trust As Custodian Under Section 45

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