Police Have No Power To Probe Or File Chargesheet Under PCPNDT Act: Supreme Court Rules Cognizance Bar Absolute 'Cannot Claim Pension Scheme Post-Retirement After Accepting CPF Benefits': Supreme Court Rules Regularisation Doesn't Relate Back To Initial Appointment 'Offence Within Four Corners Of Room Not In Public View': Supreme Court Quashes SCST Act Charges Against School Manager Give A Dog A Bad Name And Hang Him: Supreme Court Quashes UP Gangsters Act Cases; Rules Punishing Mere Status Violates Article 20(1) Child Of Tender Age Easy Prey To Tutoring: Supreme Court Quashes Double Murder Conviction Based On Solitary Child Witness 'State Cannot Supplant PSC's Role By Conducting Exhaustive Eligibility Enquiry': Supreme Court Limits Executive Power In Post-Selection Document Verification Revenue Entry Neither Creates Nor Extinguishes Title: Supreme Court Holds Limitation Against Co-Owner Cannot Run Without Open And Unequivocal Ouster 125 CrPC | Obligation To Maintain Children Cannot Be Divided By Arithmetic Alone': Supreme Court Rules Mother's Income No Ground To Halve Father's Liability 'Scramble For Possession': Supreme Court Directs Appointment Of Advocate Receiver Amid Clash Between Consent Decree Execution & Gujarat Tenancy Act Claims 'Enmity Is A Double-Edged Weapon': Allahabad High Court Acquits Murder Convicts After Medical Evidence Flaws Expose 'Eye-Witness' Lies Andhra Pradesh High Court Quashes Remand Extension Granted Without Notice To Accused, Grants Default Bail 167(2) CRPC No Violation Of Natural Justice If Borrower Fails To Produce Records Or Seek Personal Hearing: Calcutta High Court Upholds Bank's 'Fraud' Account Classification Cannot Exploit Entire Land's FAR For New Tower Once OC Is Issued Without Flat Owners' Consent: Karnataka High Court Mandates TDR Purchase Brethren Assembly Hall Is A 'Church' Under Foreign Liquor Rules, Bar Hotel Cannot Function Within Prohibited Distance: Kerala High Court Fence-Sitters Cannot Claim Arrears After Inordinate Delay, But Entitled To Notional Fixation For Pension: Madhya Pradesh High Court Strikes At The Foundation Of Institutional Integrity: Punjab And Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail In Medical PG Admission Fraud Case Foreign Law Degree Taken Directly After School Cannot Be Treated As 'First Degree' For Admission To 3-Year LL.B. In India: Bombay 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