Cognizance Is of the Offence, Not the Offender: Madras High Court Rejects Challenge to ED’s Supplementary Complaint in PMLA Case Acquittal in Rajasthan No Bar to Trial in Madhya Pradesh: MP High Court Rejects Double Jeopardy Plea in Antiquities Theft Case 20% Deposit Isn’t Automatic in Cheque Bounce Appeals: Right to Appeal Can’t Be Priced Out: Punjab & Haryana High Court Checks Mechanical Use of Section 148 NI Act A Child Is Not a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets New Benchmark in Compensation for Minors’ Deaths 90 Days Is Not Sacrosanct – Courts Can Permit Reply to Counter-Claim Even Beyond Prescribed Time in Interest of Justice: Punjab & Haryana High Court Magistrate Can Proceed Only for Offences Committed in India Until Sanction Is Obtained for Acts Outside India: Orissa High Court on International Financial Fraud Award Is Vitiated by Non-Consideration of Material Evidence: Orissa High Court Sets Aside Industrial Tribunal’s Wage Award in IMFA Case POCSO | Absence of Child's Name in Birth Certificate Not Fatal: Kerala High Court No One Has the Right to Impute Illicit Motives to Judges in the Name of Free Speech: Karnataka High Court Jails Man for Criminal Contempt DV Complaint Cannot Be Quashed at Threshold Under Article 227: Madras High Court Refuses to Interfere, Directs Accused to Seek Remedy Before Magistrate Recovery Wasn't From Accused's Exclusive Knowledge — Cylinder Already Marked in Site Plan Before Arrest: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man in Murder Case Setting Fire to House Where Only Minors Were Present is a Heinous Offence – No Quashing Merely Because Parties Settled: Calcutta High Court No Exclusive Possession Means Licence, Not Lease: Calcutta High Court Rules City Civil Court Has Jurisdiction to Evict Licensees Defendant's Own Family Attested the Sale Agreement – Yet She Called It Nominal: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Specific Performance Renewal Not Automatic, No Evidence Of Notice Or Mutual Agreement: AP High Court Dismisses Indian Oil’s Appeal Against Eviction When Death Is Caused by an Unforeseeable Forest Fire, Criminal Prosecution Cannot Be Sustained Without Proof of Rashness, Negligence, or Knowledge: Supreme Court Proof of Accident Alone is Not Enough – Claimants Must Prove Involvement of Offending Vehicle Under Section 166 MV Act: Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal for Compensation in Fatal Road Accident Case Income Tax | Search Means Search, Not ‘Other Person’: Section 153C Collapses When the Assessee Himself Is Searched: Karnataka High Court Draws a Clear Red Line License Fee on Hoardings is Regulatory, Not Tax; GST Does Not Bar Municipal Levy: Bombay High Court Filing Forged Bank Statement to Mislead Court in Maintenance Case Is Prima Facie Offence Under Section 466 IPC: Allahabad High Court Upholds Summoning Continued Cruelty and Concealment of Infertility Justify Divorce: Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Divorce Disguising Punishment as Simplicity Is Abuse of Power: Delhi High Court Quashes Dismissals of Civil Defence Volunteers for Being Stigmatic, Not Simpliciter Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD"

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