1. Recruitment for judicial posts — failure to declare separate cut-off marks for persons with benchmark disabilities in preliminary examination — challenge to the selection process. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 676
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
BELA M. TRIVEDI, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Rekha Sharma – Appellant
Versus
The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5051 of 2023
WITH
Ratanlal – Appellant
Versus
The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and Another – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5052 of 2023
Decided On : 21-08-2024
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Appointment on posts of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate under Civil Judge Cadre – Candidates who consciously took part in process of selection cannot be permitted to question advertisement or methodology adopted by respondents for making selection.
Appointment on posts of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate under Civil Judge Cadre – Candidates who consciously took part in process of selection cannot be permitted to question advertisement or methodology adopted by respondents for making selection.
Subject
Service Law - Reservation
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Reservation – Categories – Horizontal Reservation is of two types: (i) Compartmentalised Horizontal Reservation, and (ii) Overall Horizontal Reservation – Compartmentalised Horizontal Reservation is such wherein proportionate vacancies are reserved in each vertical reserved category – However, in case of Overall Horizontal Reservation, Reservation is provided on total post advertised – Such reservation is not specific to each vertical category. (Para 9)
(B) Service Law – Appointment – Reservation – Posts of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate under Civil Judge Cadre – Persons with benchmark disabilities falling under Overall Horizontal Reservation had to qualify for Mains Examination by securing minimum cut-off marks fixed for concerned category in which he/she had applied – Reservation for Persons with disabilities has been treated as Horizontal Reservation i.e., reservation under Clause (1) of Article 16 and not Vertical reservation i.e., reservation under Clause (4) of Article 16 of Constitution of India – Reservation for persons with disabilities would be relatable to Clause (1) of Article 16 and persons selected against this quota will be placed in appropriate category i.e. if he/she belongs to Scheduled Category, he/she will be placed in that category by making necessary adjustments, and if he/she belongs to open category, necessary adjustments will be made in open category – Reservation for women (widow or divorcee) was compartmentalised reservation, whereas reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities was overall reservation – Candidates who consciously took part in process of selection cannot be permitted to question advertisement or methodology adopted by respondents for making selection, on their having been declared as unsuccessful in Preliminary Examinations – Appellants after they having found that their names do not appear in list of successful candidates of Preliminary Examination, could not have questioned result on the ground that respondents had not declared cut-off marks for Persons with benchmark disabilities – Impugned judgments and orders passed by High Court upheld. (Paras 9, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 17)
Facts of the case:
High Court had issued an advertisement for direct recruitment of 120 posts of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate under Civil Judge Cadre. Appellant-Ms. Rekha Sharma, having 40% permanent disability in relation to her eyes, had applied for said post. Appellant-Ratan Lal having locomotor disability i.e. 55% permanent physical impairment in relation to his right upper limb, had also applied for said post. Both having appeared in Preliminary Examination were declared “not successful.” As per result declared on 11.01.2022, cut off marks in respect of every category mentioned in advertisement were shown except cut off-marks for category of Persons with benchmark disabilities.
Findings of Court:
Respondents have declared cut-off marks for the persons falling under Compartmentalised Horizontal Reservation and not for the Overall Horizontal Reservation under which the appellants fall. Such action could neither be said to be arbitrary nor violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India.
Result : Appeals dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu S. Pandey, Adv. Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, AOR Mr. Maitreya Mahaley, Adv. Mr. Aayush, Adv. Mr. Sameer Shrivastava, AOR Ms. Yashika Varshney, Adv. Dr. Sangeeta Verma, Adv. Mrs. Priyanka Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Peeyush Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mukul Kumar, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu S. Pandey, Adv. Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, AOR Mr. Maitreya Mahaley, Adv. Mr. Aayush, Adv. Mr. Sameer Shrivastava, AOR Ms. Yashika Varshney, Adv. Dr. Sangeeta Verma, Adv. Mrs. Priyanka Shrivastava, Adv. Mr. Peeyush Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Mukul Kumar, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Non-declaration of separate cut-off marks for persons with benchmark disabilities — alleged violation of Articles 14, 16, 21 of the Constitution and relevant service rules. (Para 4 )
3. Persons with benchmark disabilities under overall horizontal reservation must qualify by securing the minimum cut-off marks of the vertical category in which they applied. (Para 8 , 9 , 15 )
4. In overall horizontal reservation, candidates must meet the cut-off marks of their respective vertical categories unless specific separate cut-offs are mandated by rules. (Para 9 , 15 )
5. Appeals dismissed — High Court judgments and orders upheld. (Para 17 )
6. What is the difference between compartmentalised and overall horizontal reservation?
Compartmentalised horizontal reservation reserves proportionate vacancies within each vertical category. Overall horizontal reservation is provided against total advertised posts and is not specific to each vertical category; candidates are adjusted into their respective vertical categories. (Para 9 , 14 , 15 )
7. How are cut-off marks applied to candidates under overall horizontal reservation?
Candidates under overall horizontal reservation must qualify for the next stage of examination by securing the minimum cut-off marks fixed for the specific vertical category under which they applied. (Para 9 , 15 )
8. Does the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 mandate separate cut-off marks?
No, the Act of 2016 and the associated State Rules do not contain any provision making it mandatory for recruiting authorities to fix or declare separate cut-off marks for persons with benchmark disabilities. (Para 10 , 11 )
9. Can a candidate challenge the selection methodology after failing the examination?
Candidates who consciously participate in a selection process cannot challenge the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the respondents after being declared unsuccessful in the examinations. (Para 16 )
JUDGMENT :
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. Both the appeals having common question of law and facts were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. The facts in nutshell are that the respondent High Court had issued an advertisement for the direct recruitment of 120 posts of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate under the Civil Judge Cadre. The appellant-Ms. Rekha Sharma, having 40% permanent disability in relation to her eyes, had applied for the said post. The appellant-Ratan Lal having locomotor disability i.e. 55% permanent physical impairment in relation to his right upper limb, had also applied for the said post. Both having appeared in the Preliminary Examination were declared “not successful.” As per the result declared on 11.01.2022, the cut off marks in respect of every category mentioned in the advertisement were shown except the cut off marks for the category of Persons with benchmark disabilities.
3. Being aggrieved by the said result, the appellant-Ratan Lal (in C.A. No. 5052/2023) had preferred D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1436 of 2022, which came to be dismissed by the High Court vide the judgment and order dated 02.03.2022. The appellant-Rekha Sharma (in C.A. No. 5051/2023) had also filed D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1868 of 2022 which came to be dismissed by the High Court vide the order dated 06.04.2022 relying upon the judgment dated 02.03.2022 passed in Writ Petition No. 1436 of 2022.
4. The bone of contention raised by the learned counsels appearing for both the appellants in the instant appeals is that the respondents while declaring the result of Preliminary Examination showing the cut off marks for each of the categories mentioned in the advertisement in question, had not shown the cut off marks for the category of Persons with benchmark disabilities. According to them, the said action of the respondents was discriminatory and violative of their Fundamental Rights enshrined in Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and also violative of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 read with Rajasthan Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2018.
5. According to the learned Senior Counsel Ms. Pinky Anand appearing for the respondents, the appellant-Rekha Sharma having obtained 57 marks in the EWS category for which the cut off marks were 69 marks, and the appellant-Ratan Lal having secured 59 marks in the OBC-NCL category for which the cut off marks were 67 marks, were found to be not qualified for appearing in the Main Examination. She further submitted that the entire selection process was over on 30.08.2022 and the appointments of successful candidates have already been made by the respondents on 09.03.2023. The fresh advertisement for the vacancies of 2022-2024 was issued on 09.04.2024 and the result of the Preliminary Examination in respect of the said advertisement has also been declared on 15.07.2024.
6. Before dealing with the rival contentions raised by the learned counsels for the parties, let us refer to the relevant paragraphs of the advertisement dated 22.07.2021 in question:
“1. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur under the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 (As amended) is inviting online application in the prescribed online format for direct recruitment on 120 vacant posts (89 posts of 2020 and 31 posts of 2021) of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate under the Civil Judge Cadre on probation at the pay scale of 27700-770-33090-920-40450-1080- 44770.
2-3..............
4. Number of Vacant Posts and Reservations:
| Total no. of vacancies | Year | General | Reserved | Persons with benchmark disabilities | ||||
| SC | ST | OBC | EWS | MBC | ||||
| 89 | 2020 (upto Dec. 2020) | 35 out of which 10 posts for women out of 10 posts 02 posts reserved for widow | 14 out of which 04 posts for women out of 04 posts 01 post for widow | 10 out of which 03 posts for women | 18 out of which 05 posts for women out of 05 posts 01 post for widow | 08 out of which 02 | ||
