Wife Is Absolute Owner Of Streedhan, Taking It Away Does Not Attract Criminal Breach Of Trust Under Section 406 IPC: Allahabad High Court Government Need Not Adjudicate If Employee Is 'Workman' Before Referring Dispute To Labour Court: Gujarat High Court Bidder Cannot Be Disqualified For Submitting Certificate From Unspecified Agency If Tender Document Is Silent: Delhi High Court Driver Clicking Selfies With Licensed Firearm Doesn't Make Owner Liable Under Arms Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes FIR High Court Imposes Blanket Ban On Tree Felling In Haryana, Cites Impending Ecological Catastrophe Due To Dismal Forest Cover No Fresh Summons Needed For Legal Heirs If Suit Was Already Proceeding Ex-Parte Against Deceased Defendant: Allahabad High Court Serving Judicial Officer's Anticipatory Bail Denied in Theft From Deceased Judge's Home: "No Person, Whatever His Rank, Is Above Law" Missing Murder Weapon Not Fatal When Eyewitnesses Are Reliable - Brother Stabs Brother: Tripura High Court Advocate and Cop Conspired to Frame Innocent Witness in Fake Gang Rape Case: Delhi High Court Upholds Conviction, Calls It "Clear Abuse of Process of Law" Direction To 'Act In Accordance With Law' Does Not Determine Substantive Rights, Non-Impleadment Not A Ground For Review: Chhattisgarh High Court State Cannot Grab Citizen's Land For Road Construction Pleading Delay And Laches: Himachal Pradesh High Court "Bail Is Rule, Jail Is Exception" Principle Does Not Apply Post-Conviction: Jharkhand High Court Failure To Furnish Written Grounds Of Arrest Renders Arrest Illegal, Entitles Accused To Bail In NDPS Case: Supreme Court Medical Certificate On Reverse Side Of Dying Declaration Does Not Affect Its Sanctity: Supreme Court Supreme Court Directs All State Capitals To Conduct Inquiry Into Misuse Of Residential Areas For Commercial Purposes Tolls Collected By NHAI On National Highways Fall Exclusively Under Union List: Supreme Court Family Courts Lack Jurisdiction To Transfer Cases Inter-Se Under Section 24 CPC: Rajasthan High Court Section 138 NI Act | Cheque Bounce Complaint Cannot Be Dismissed At Threshold Merely For Non-Production Of Postal Track Report: Madhya Pradesh High Court Departmental Dismissal Based On Identical Evidence Discarded By Criminal Court Amounts To 'No Evidence': Orissa High Court Kerala Lok Ayukta Amendment Upheld: High Court Rules Lok Ayukta Is Not A Court, Its Declaration Can Be Changed To Recommendation Chief Minister's Press Conference Assurance Not Legally Enforceable Without Formal Executive Order: Delhi High Court Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage Amounts To Cruelty, Court Cannot Grant Permanent Alimony Suo Motu: Calcutta High Court Minor Contradictions In Wife's Evidence Are Usual In Cruelty Cases, Do Not Vitiate Prosecution Under Section 498A: Kerala High Court

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