1. Recruitment for Civil Judge — Dispute over cut-off marks for Persons with Benchmark Disability (PwBD) — Challenge against non-selection despite meeting minimum qualifying marks. (Para 1 , 2 , 5 , 6 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 696
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, JJ.
Rekha Sharma – Petitioner
Versus
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan and Another – Respondents
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 733 of 2024
Decided On : 15-04-2025
Important Points
The court directed the accommodation of a candidate with disability in recruitment despite not meeting the cut-off due to higher marks of others, emphasizing the need for fair consideration in light of her qualifications.
Subject
Employment Law - Disability Rights
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16, and 21 - Recruitment for Civil Judges - Petitioner, a candidate with 49% low-vision disability, challenged the non-declaration of separate cut-off marks for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBDs) in the Rajasthan Judicial Services Exams 2024 - The Court found that the petitioner secured minimum qualifying marks but was not selected due to higher marks obtained by other candidates - The Court directed the respondents to accommodate the petitioner in a vacant post or create a supernumerary post for her - The peculiar facts of the case warranted this direction. (Paras 10, 15, 16, and 18)
(B) Reservation for Persons with Disabilities - The concept of own merit for PwBD candidates must be implemented in recruitment processes, ensuring that reserved vacancies are filled separately from the general merit list. (Paras 14 and 15)
(B) Reservation for Persons with Disabilities - The concept of own merit for PwBD candidates must be implemented in recruitment processes, ensuring that reserved vacancies are filled separately from the general merit list. (Paras 14 and 15)
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioners: Shadan Farasat, Talha Abdul Rahman, Rahul Bajaj, Taha Bin Tasneem, Amar Jain, Harshit Anand, Faizan Ahmad
For the Respondents: Mukul Kumar, Abhinandan Basu
For the Petitioners: Shadan Farasat, Talha Abdul Rahman, Rahul Bajaj, Taha Bin Tasneem, Amar Jain, Harshit Anand, Faizan Ahmad
For the Respondents: Mukul Kumar, Abhinandan Basu
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner contends a meritorious PwBD candidate belonging to a reserved category should be adjusted vertically; Respondents argue merit-based selection within horizontal reservation. (Para 12 , 13 )
3. PwBD candidates selected on own merit without relaxed standards should not be adjusted against reserved PwBD vacancies, potentially freeing posts for other eligible PwBD candidates. (Para 14 )
4. PwBD candidates selected without relaxed standards are not adjusted against reserved vacancies, which are filled by eligible PwBD candidates lower in merit than the last unreserved candidate. (Para 14 )
5. Petition disposed of with directions to appoint the petitioner in a vacant PwBD post or a supernumerary post under Article 142. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 )
6. How is the concept of own merit applied to Persons with Benchmark Disability (PwBD) in recruitment?
PwBD candidates selected without relaxed standards are treated as unreserved candidates and are not adjusted against the reserved share of PwBD vacancies. Reserved vacancies are filled separately by eligible PwBD candidates who are lower in merit than the last unreserved candidate in the general merit list. (Para 14 )
7. Can the court create a supernumerary post for appointment in exceptional cases?
Yes, the court may exercise its extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to direct the creation of a supernumerary post to ensure the interest of justice, particularly when a candidate has secured the minimum qualifying marks. (Para 15 , 16 )
8. What is the effect of a PwBD candidate also belonging to a reserved vertical category?
If a PwBD candidate is selected on their own merit and also belongs to a reserved vertical category, they should be adjusted in that vertical category, thereby leaving the PwBD reserved vacancy available for other eligible candidates with disabilities. (Para 12 , 14 )
ORDER :
1. The Petitioner obtained her law degree on 11.06.2016. She was issued a disability certificate by the Department of Medical Health, Government of Rajasthan, certifying 49% low-vision disability.
2. An advertisement was issued on 22.07.2021 for the recruitment of Civil Judges. A total of 89 posts were advertised for the year 2020, including 4 posts reserved for Persons with Benchmark Disability (PwBDs). Additionally, 31 posts were advertised for 2021, with 1 post reserved for PwBDs.
3. Pursuant to the advertisement, the Petitioner applied under the category of Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) with Benchmark Disability and appeared for the Preliminary Examination held on 28.11.2021. The results, declared on 11.01.2022, did not specify the cut-off marks for PwBD candidates, although cut-off marks for other categories were published.
4. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1868/2022 before the High Court, which was dismissed on 06.04.2022. Being aggrieved by the order dated 06.04.2022, the petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition before this Court (later numbered as Civil Appeal No. 5051 of 2023) challenging the non-declaration of separate cut-off marks for PwBDs in the Preliminary Examination of Rajasthan Judicial Services, 2021. The same was dismissed on 21.08.2024.
5. During the pendency of the said appeal, the High Court issued Detailed Advertisement No. 783/2024 dated 09.04.2024 for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge Cadre, Rajasthan Judicial Services. The advertisement notified 222 vacancies (83 for 2022, 57 for 2023 and 82 for 2024), out of which 9 posts were reserved for PwBDs, including 2 posts for blind and low vision candidates.
6. On 05.06.2024, the Petitioner received her Admit Card for the Preliminary Examination. The result declared on 15.07.2024 showed that she had qualified under the vertical category of EWS. Subsequently, the petitioner received her Admit Card for the Main Examination on 12.08.2024. The results of the Main Examination were declared on 01.10.2024, and the said result did not include the name of the petitioner among the qualified candidates.
7. Being aggrieved by the non-declaration of a separate cut-off marks for PwBDs in the Main Examination, the Petitioner filed I.A. No. 237785 of 2024 in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6 of 2024 before this Court. However, this Court, in the said Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No. 6 of 2024, directed the petitioner to file a substantive writ petition.
8. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the High Court through Writ Petition (Civil) No. 16764 of 2024, praying for separate cut-off marks to be declared for PwBD candidates to qualify for the interview for the Rajasthan Judicial Services Exams 2024. The High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 16764 of 2024 permitted the petitioner to participate in the interview for the Rajasthan Judicial Services Exams 2024. Following the same, the petitioner was issued a call letter for the Interview for the Rajasthan Judicial Services 2024.
9. Thereafter, on 27.10.2024, the final results of the Rajasthan Judicial Services Exams 2024 were notified, whereby the cut-off marks for the Mains stage for PwBD category was set as 121.5 marks. The petitioner had secured 119 marks. Accordingly, the name of the petitioner was not found in the above list of selectees. At this stage, the petitioner contended that the minimum qualifying marks are 117.25 as per clause 23 of the Advertisement, which mandates 35% aggregate marks for SC/ST and PwBD candidates, and 40% for others, hence the petitioner is eligible for being selected. Being aggrieved, the petitioner made a representation on 28.10.2024; however, the same was futile. Hence, this instant writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner.
10. The petitioner has sought the following reliefs:
“(a) Pass a writ order declaring that the denial of the benefit of reservation for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PWBDs) to the Petitioner in the resul
