Summary
A judicial-service candidate who applied and competed throughout as a general candidate claimed disability reservation only after the final result. The Court set aside a direction to reconsider her under that category. The governing rule and notification had not been challenged, the vacancy had been filled, and her asserted type of disability required timely expert assessment. The decision rested on the circumstances of that selection rather than a final ruling on statutory-rule validity.
Issues
- Whether the candidate could claim disability reservation after completing selection as a general candidate.
- Whether the Court could direct consideration despite disputed disability classification and an already-filled vacancy.
Provisions considered
- Rule 10(4), Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010The unchallenged rule was operated in filling the vacancy through the normal procedure; its validity against the statutory carry-forward requirement was not finally adjudicated. (¶¶ 13, 14, 18)
Held
- The candidate expressly answered no to the disability column, paid the general-category fee and supplied no disability certificate through interview. The post-result request could not be treated as a timely reservation claim on these facts. (¶¶ 3, 7, 15, 16)
- The applicable notification and recruitment rule were not challenged for inadequate reservation or absence of carry-forward. Their operation in the completed selection could not be displaced through the relief sought; wider reservation precedents did not resolve this individual claim. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
- The certificate referred to locomotor impairment whereas the later representation asserted visual impairment. The nature and extent of that condition required assessment by the recruiting authority, with medical input if needed, at the proper stage; the Court could not substitute itself as an expert. (¶¶ 17, 18)
- Disability employment rights do not depend on sympathy when legally established. Here the absent timely claim, disputed classification and completed appointment made the mandamus unjustified. (¶ 18)
Result
The appeal was allowed without costs, the High Court’s direction to reconsider and appoint the candidate under disability reservation was set aside, and pending applications were disposed of.