Motor Insurance Policy Covers Cross-Border Travel If Specifically Authorized By Valid Permit Under MVA: Supreme Court Petrol Pumps Act As 'Commission Agents' For Mahanagar Gas, Liable To Pay Service Tax Under Business Auxiliary Service: Supreme Court Supreme Court Refuses To Dilute 'Bangalore Water Supply' Ratio, Affirms Worker Protection Remains The Core Of Industrial Disputes Act Order XXII Rule 9(3) CPC | Application Under Section 5 Limitation Act Must Be Filed Separately To Condonate Delay In Setting Aside Abatement: Supreme Court Principle Of Parity | Supreme Court Extends Benefit Of Fixed-Term Sentence To Co-Accused Based On Remission Period Right To Catch Fish Amounts To 'Profit à Prendre' And Is Compulsorily Registrable As A Lease Under Section 17(1)(d) Registration Act: Supreme Court Supreme Court Mandates Adoption Of Guidelines To Inculcate Sensitivity And Compassion In Judicial Processes For Sexual Offences 'Last Seen' Circumstance Is Weak Without Corroboration: Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused PSEB | Pre-Regularization Service Must Be Counted As Qualifying Service For Pensionary Benefits: Supreme Court Writ Of Quo Warranto Cannot Be Used For Redress Of Personal Grievances By Unsuccessful Candidates In Selection Process: Supreme Court 'Case Of No Investigation': Supreme Court Acquits Murder Accused Citing 'Shoddy' Police Work And Lack Of Forensic Evidence 'Status Quo Cannot Be Vacated Without Appropriate Security': Supreme Court Directs Additional ₹200 Crores Deposit In RAKIA-Matrix Case SARFAESI Act | 'Bank' As Assignee Can Invoke Recovery Measures Even If Debt Was Originally Created By Non-Notified Financial Institution: Supreme Court 'CBI Failed Miserably': Supreme Court Tears Into 'Fabricated' Case, Acquits Bank Manager In 35-Year-Old Corruption Trial Mere Delay In Tax Deposit Cannot Be Equated With Non-Payment: Supreme Court Quashes Penalty On Saudi Arabian Airlines Revisional Power Under Section 56 Karnataka Land Revenue Act Cannot Be Invoked Beyond Three-Year Limitation Period: Supreme Court Prosecution Can’t Use Known Locations To Create 'Discovery' Fiction: Supreme Court Rejects Site Plan As Evidence Irretrievable Breakdown Of Marriage And Long-Term Separation Constitute Valid Grounds For Divorce Under Section 13(1)(ib) HMA: Supreme Court 'Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt Is A Guideline And Not A Fetish': Supreme Court Acquits Man In 2007 Murder Case Over Fragile Circumstantial Evidence Plea Of Juvenility Is A Jurisdictional Fact; High Court Must Recall Final Judgments Under Section 482 CrPC To Remedy Miscarriage Of Justice: Supreme Court SEBI | Professional Clearing Members Have No Statutory Obligation To Verify Credit/Debit Positions Of Individual Clients Of Trading Members: Supreme 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