First Appellate Court Cannot Grant Relief Beyond Pleadings Or Determine Shares In A Non-Partition Suit: Jharkhand High Court Probate Cannot Be Granted Merely On Proof Of Signature If Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding Testator’s Health & Will’s Execution Remain Unexplained: Gujarat High Court Litigant Seeking Case Transfer Under Section 24 CPC Must Approach Court With Clean Hands: Andhra Pradesh High Court Technical Qualification In Tenders Does Not Guarantee Selection; Presentation For Qualitative Assessment Is Permissible 'Play In The Joints': Delhi High Court Registration Of Sale Deed Acts As Constructive Notice; Section 53A TPA Is A Shield, Not A Sword To Assert Ownership: Gujarat High Court Is Dividend Distribution Tax A Tax On Company Or Shareholder? Bombay High Court Refers 'Cleavage Of Opinion' To Larger Bench May" In Service Regulations Is Directory; Delinquent Employee Has No Right To Insist On Common Disciplinary Proceedings: Supreme Court Billing Errors In Hospitals Don't Amount To Cheating Or Breach Of Trust Without Proof Of Dishonest Intention: Supreme Court Quashed FIR IBC Appeal Filed Without Applying For Certified Copy Within Limitation Period Is 'Incurably Tainted': Supreme Court 35% Share Of Gross Receipts From AOP Is 'Revenue Sharing' Taxable As Business Income, Not Tax-Exempt 'Share Of Profit': Supreme Court Market Value Determination Under Section 26(1) Of 2013 LA Act Cannot Be Based On A Single Sale Deed Of Dissimilar Land: Supreme Court Professional Career Choice Of Qualified Woman Not Cruelty Or Desertion; Wife's Identity Not Subject To 'Spousal Veto': Supreme Court Dictation Given In Open Court Not Final Judgment; Only Signed Order Embodies Final Unalterable Opinion: Supreme Court Engineering Student's Notional Income Cannot Be Equated To Minimum Wages Of Unskilled Workers: Supreme Court Enhances Compensation High Court Cannot Stay Filing Of Charge-Sheet By Blindly Relying On Precedents Without Factual Analysis: Supreme Court State Must Impart Education In Mother Tongue; Supreme Court Directs Rajasthan Govt To Introduce Rajasthani Language In Schools Right To Receive Education In Mother Tongue Or Language Of Choice Is A Fundamental Right Under Article 19(1)(a): Supreme 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