Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the Rajasthan High Court's refusal to interfere with the 2021 Civil Judge preliminary examination result, which declared cut-off marks for every category except persons with benchmark disabilities. Because the disability reservation was an overall horizontal reservation, such candidates had to clear the cut-off of the category in which they applied, and nothing in the advertisement, the RJS Rules, 2010, the 2016 Act or the 2018 Rules required a separate cut-off.
Issues
- Whether the recruiting High Court was bound to declare separate cut-off marks for persons with benchmark disabilities in the preliminary examination result.
- Whether non-declaration of such cut-off marks was arbitrary or violated Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution, or the disability law and rules.
- Whether candidates who took part in the selection and failed can challenge the methodology of the selection.
Provisions considered
- Article 16(1) and 16(4), Constitution of IndiaRelying on Indra Sawhney, the Court treated reservation for persons with disabilities as horizontal reservation relatable to Article 16(1), cutting across the vertical reservations under Article 16(4); persons selected against it are adjusted in their own vertical or open category. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- Articles 14, 16 and 21, Constitution of IndiaThe appellants' plea that omitting a cut-off for persons with benchmark disabilities was discriminatory was rejected; the action was held neither arbitrary nor violative of these Articles. (¶¶ 4, 15, 16)
- Rules governing recruitment to the Civil Judge cadre (as amended on 16.04.2024), Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010The appellants could point to nothing in the Rules making separate cut-off marks for persons with benchmark disabilities mandatory; the 2024 amendment, giving effect to the State notification of 14.10.2021, grants age relaxation and a 5% concession in marks but does not require a separate cut-off. (¶ 10)
- General provisions, Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and Rajasthan Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2018The Act was recognised as social welfare legislation to be construed to advance its objects, but no provision of the Act or the 2018 Rules was shown to be violated by not fixing a separate cut-off. (¶ 11)
Held
- Horizontal reservation is of two types. In compartmentalised horizontal reservation, proportionate vacancies are reserved within each vertical category and are not intertransferable. In overall horizontal reservation, the reservation applies to the total posts advertised, and the candidates are adjusted against any vertical category, so the seats are intertransferable. (¶¶ 9, 14)
- Under the advertisement, reservation for women (widow or divorcee) was compartmentalised, being specified within each category, whereas the five posts for persons with benchmark disabilities were an overall horizontal reservation on the total vacancies. Such candidates therefore had to secure the cut-off fixed for the category in which they had applied in order to qualify for the Main Examination. (¶¶ 8, 9, 15)
- Declaring cut-off marks for the compartmentalised categories but not for persons with benchmark disabilities under the overall reservation was neither arbitrary nor violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21. Nothing in the advertisement, the RJS Rules, 2010, the State notifications, the 2016 Act or the 2018 Rules made a separate cut-off mandatory. (¶¶ 10, 11, 15, 16)
- Candidates who consciously took part in the selection process cannot, after being declared unsuccessful in the preliminary examination, question the advertisement or the selection methodology adopted. (¶¶ 8, 16)
Result
Both appeals dismissed; the High Court's judgments dismissing the writ petitions upheld.