Rigours of UAPA Melt Before Article 21: Jharkhand High Court Grants Bail After Six Years of Incarceration Accused Cannot Challenge in Arguments What He Never Challenged in Cross-Examination: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Counterblast Plea, Civil Dispute Defence No Shield When Cognizable Offence Is Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Ex-Driver Accused Of Outraging Modesty Lawyers Who Burned a Colleague's Furniture for Defending Toll Workers Have Tainted a Noble Profession: Supreme Court A Suspicious Dying Declaration Cannot Hang a Man: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction IQ of 65, Memory Loss, Frontal Lobe Damage: Supreme Court Holds Brain-Injured Manager Suffered 100% Functional Disability, Enhances Compensation to ₹97.73 Lakh Cannot Be Forced to Pay Gratuity to Retired Employees Who Refuse to Vacate Company Quarters: Supreme Court Victim Who Incited Riot Inside Court Cannot Blame Accused for Trial Delay: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Section 307 Case You Cannot Sell What You Don’t Own: ‘Vendor’s Half Share Means Buyer Gets Only Half’ : Andhra Pradesh High Court Nagaland's Oil Laws Face Constitutional Challenge: Gauhati High Court Sends Union-State Dispute to Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 3 CPC | Will's Validity Cannot Be Decided in Substitution Proceedings: Himachal Pradesh High Court 6-Year-Old Loses Arm To Live 11kV Wire Passing 'Almost Touching' Her Balcony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Awards Rs. 99.93 Lakh To Child Despite Nigam Blaming Father For 'Extending Balcony' Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Quash Rape & POCSO Conviction After Marriage Between Accused And Victim NGT Cannot Order Demolition of Temple On Ground of Encroachment of Park: Supreme Court Quashes Removal Order For Want of Jurisdiction Hostile Witnesses & Doubtful Recovery Can Collapse Prosecution: J&K High Court Sets High Threshold for Criminal Proof Compassion Cannot Override the Clock: Karnataka HC Denies Job to Guardian Aunt Despite 2021 Rule Change” Second Marriage During Pendency of Divorce Appeal Is Void: Kerala High Court Appearing in Exam Does Not Cure Attendance Deficiency: MP High Court Upholds 'Year Down' Against BBA Student With Sub-30% Attendance Patna High Court Directs Bihar To Submit Detailed Rehabilitation Plan For Recovered Mental Health Patients, Expand Half-Way Homes Across State Rajasthan High Court Upholds Refusal to Drop Bharat Band Stone-Pelting Case

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