A) Abstract / Headnote

The case revolves around the reservation policies for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) in the recruitment for the post of Civil Judge. The appellants, who were unsuccessful in the Preliminary Examination, contested the omission of separate cutoff marks for the PwBD category. The Supreme Court upheld the Rajasthan High Court’s decision, asserting that the reservation for PwBD is Overall Horizontal Reservation and not Compartmentalized Horizontal Reservation, meaning it does not require a separate cutoff declaration. The Court further held that the recruitment process was conducted in compliance with relevant rules and constitutional provisions, dismissing allegations of arbitrariness or discrimination.

Keywords: Horizontal Reservation, Benchmark Disabilities, Civil Judge Recruitment, Article 16, Cutoff Marks.

B) Case Details

i. Judgement Cause Title:
Rekha Sharma v. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr.

ii. Case Number:
Civil Appeal No. 5051 of 2023

iii. Judgement Date:
21 August 2024

iv. Court:
Supreme Court of India

v. Quorum:
Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

vi. Author:
Justice Bela M. Trivedi

vii. Citation:
[2024] 8 S.C.R. 488

viii. Legal Provisions Involved:

• Article 16 (1) and (4) of the Constitution of India
• Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 2010
• Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
• Rajasthan Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2018

ix. Judgments Overruled by the Case:
None.

x. Case is Related to Which Law Subjects:
Constitutional Law, Administrative Law, Disability Rights, and Service Law.

C) Introduction and Background of Judgment

This appeal arises from a dispute concerning recruitment for 120 Civil Judge posts under the Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 2010. The appellants, belonging to the PwBD category, contended that the omission of separate cutoff marks for their category violated their rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. They argued that such omission was arbitrary, discriminatory, and in contravention of statutory provisions, including the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed their writ petitions, stating that PwBD reservation is Overall Horizontal Reservation, which does not require specific cutoff marks. Dissatisfied, the appellants escalated the matter to the Supreme Court.

D) Facts of the Case

1. An advertisement was issued for the recruitment of 120 posts of Civil Judge in the Rajasthan Judiciary.
2. The appellants, Ms. Rekha Sharma and Mr. Ratan Lal, applied under the PwBD category.
3. The Preliminary Examination results showed cutoff marks for all categories except for PwBD.
4. Both appellants failed to meet the general category cutoff marks applicable to their sub-categories (EWS and OBC-NCL).
5. Aggrieved, they filed writ petitions in the Rajasthan High Court, which were dismissed.
6. The High Court reasoned that PwBD is treated as an Overall Horizontal Reservation, adjusted against respective vertical categories, negating the need for separate cutoff marks.

E) Legal Issues Raised

1. Whether the omission of separate cutoff marks for PwBD candidates violates Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.
2. Whether the recruitment process adhered to the Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 2010, and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
3. The classification of reservation for PwBD as Overall Horizontal versus Compartmentalized Horizontal and its implications.

F) Petitioner/Appellant’s Arguments

1. Violation of Fundamental Rights: The omission of separate cutoff marks for PwBD was discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16, and 21.
2. Statutory Non-Compliance: The omission breached provisions under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and associated rules.
3. Discriminatory Policy: Failing to declare separate cutoff marks treated PwBD candidates unequally compared to candidates in other categories.

G) Respondent’s Arguments

1. Horizontal Reservation Concept: Reservation for PwBD is Overall Horizontal Reservation, adjusted within the vertical category of the candidate, negating the need for separate cutoff marks.
2. Compliance with Rules: The recruitment process followed the Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 2010, and related notifications.
3. Post-Facto Challenge: Candidates cannot challenge the recruitment methodology after participating in the process and failing.

H) Related Legal Provisions

1. Article 16 (1) and (4): Equality of opportunity in public employment and reservation for backward classes.
2. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: Ensures rights and opportunities for persons with disabilities.
3. Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 2010: Governs the recruitment process for the Rajasthan Judiciary.

I) Judgement

a) Ratio Decidendi

1. Reservation for PwBD falls under Overall Horizontal Reservation, meaning candidates are adjusted within their respective vertical categories.
2. Non-declaration of separate cutoff marks for PwBD is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory under Articles 14, 16, and 21.
3. The recruitment process adhered to statutory and constitutional requirements.

b) Obiter Dicta (if any)

• The rights of PwBD under the 2016 Act must be interpreted to achieve equality, dignity, and inclusion without extending beyond explicit statutory provisions.

c) Guidelines (if any)

• For future recruitments, transparency in reservation policies, especially for horizontal categories, should be prioritized to prevent disputes.

J) Conclusion and Comments

The Supreme Court’s judgment clarifies the nature of horizontal reservations and reinforces that recruitment processes must adhere to pre-declared criteria. This case highlights the importance of balancing equality with statutory limitations, especially in complex reservation policies.

References

1. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, [1992] Supp. 2 SCR 454
2. Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., [1995] Suppl. 2 SCR 396
3. Constitution of India
4. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
5. Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 2010