138 NI Act | Admission Of Signatures On Cheque Triggers Statutory Presumption Of Debt: Punjab & Haryana HC Magistrate Cannot Straightaway Issue NBW For Non-Appearance If Accused Is Already On Bail; Bail Valid Until Cancelled: Orissa High Court Bank Cannot Dishonour Cheques Merely Because Account Title Changed From Partnership To Proprietorship: Madhya Pradesh High Court Environmental Clearance Is Site-Specific; Violations At Different Site By Related Entity Not Ground To Deny New EC: Kerala High Court Advocate’s Failure To Formally Prove Fee Bill Not Fatal To Claim If Oral Evidence Establishes Non-Payment Of Agreed Professional Fees: Delhi High Court Police Officers Cannot Fight Over Specific Postings; Disciplined Force Must Prioritize Public Interest Over Location: Karnataka High Court RERA Section 18 Interest For Delayed Possession Is An Unqualified Absolute Right; Notice Under Section 55 Contract Act Not Required: Bombay High Court State Cannot Hand Over Additional Charge Of Sensitive Posts To Tainted Officers Facing Disciplinary Action: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mandatory Inquiry Under Section 202 CrPC Essential If Accused Resides Outside Jurisdiction; Commercial Breach Not Criminal Offence: Calcutta High Court Disciplinary Enquiry Cannot Be Quashed Merely For Delay In Conclusion; 6-Month Timeline Under G.O.Ms.No.679 Is Directory: Andhra Pradesh High Court Exoneration In Adjudication Proceedings No Bar To Criminal Prosecution If CBI Collects Independent Evidence Of Forgery & Conspiracy: Bombay High Court Public Prosecutor Not A 'Post Office' Of Investigating Agency; Independent Application Of Mind Mandatory For Extending Remand Beyond 180 Days Under NDPS Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Complainant Cannot Use Section 311 CrPC To Reopen Pre-Charge Stage After Explicit Waiver & Framing Of Charges: Allahabad High Court Bomb Blast In Train Is An 'Accident' Under Railways Act, Union Of India Liable To Pay Compensation: Punjab & Haryana High Court Bail Hearing Can Proceed In Informant's Absence If Notice Was Served Despite Section 483(2) BNSS Mandate: Allahabad High Court

Supreme Court Clarifies: No Separate Cut-Offs for Disabled Candidates in Civil Judge Exams

24 August 2024 2:48 PM

By: sayum


The Supreme Court of India, in a significant judgment delivered in August 2024, dismissed the appeals challenging the recruitment process for Civil Judge posts in Rajasthan. The appellants, Rekha Sharma and Ratan Lal, who have benchmark disabilities, had contested the non-declaration of cut-off marks for their category in the preliminary examination. The Court upheld the Rajasthan High Court's decision, reinforcing the legal interpretation of horizontal reservations and its non-compartmentalized application in recruitment processes.

The case originated from an advertisement issued by the Rajasthan High Court for the recruitment of 120 Civil Judges. The appellants, who suffer from visual and locomotor disabilities, respectively, participated in the preliminary examination but were not successful. They challenged the result, arguing that the failure to declare cut-off marks for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) was discriminatory and violated their constitutional rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21.

Horizontal Reservation Mechanism: The Supreme Court elaborated on the distinction between compartmentalized and overall horizontal reservations. The Court noted that the reservation for PwBD candidates was treated as an overall horizontal reservation, not limited to specific vertical categories like General or OBC. The Court emphasized that in such cases, candidates must meet the cut-off for the vertical category they belong to, rather than having a separate cut-off for the horizontal category.

The Court rejected the appellants' claims, stating that there was no legal or procedural requirement to declare a separate cut-off for PwBD candidates under the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010. The judgment referenced the landmark Indra Sawhney case, which clarified that horizontal reservations (like those for disabilities) intersect with vertical reservations (such as SC, ST, OBC) and do not warrant separate cut-off criteria.

The bench, led by Justice Bela M. Trivedi, observed, “The Persons with benchmark disabilities for being adjusted in the category for which he or she had applied, had to secure the minimum cut-off marks fixed for such category under which he or she had applied.”

The Supreme Court's decision reaffirms the interpretation of horizontal reservations in the Indian judicial recruitment process. By dismissing the appeals, the Court has clarified that PwBD candidates are subject to the same cut-off criteria as their respective vertical categories, a ruling that will impact future cases involving horizontal reservations. The judgment upholds the fairness and consistency of the recruitment process while ensuring compliance with established legal principles.

Date of Decision: August 21, 2024

Rekha Sharma vs. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr.

Latest Legal News