IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Praveer Bhatnagar, JJ.
Rohitash Kumar Jat Son Of Shri Sagar Mal Jat - Petitioner
Versus
Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through Its Registrar General and ors. – Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9645, 7405, 8849 of 2023
Decided On : 06-10-2023
Reservation - Persons with Benchmark Disabilities - Rajasthan Employment of Disabled Persons Rules, 2000 - The court discussed the issue of declaring separate cut off marks for physically handicapped candidates and held that reservations for physically handicapped candidates are horizontal reservations and do not mandate the preparation of a separate category with declared cut off marks. The court relied on various decisions and the constitutional scheme to conclude that the omission to declare separate cut off marks for persons with benchmark disabilities is not illegal.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought direction to declare him eligible and selected under the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (Deaf and Hard of Hearing) category for recruitment to the post of Junior Judicial Assistant and Clerk Gr.II. The petitioner was aggrieved by the omission of the respondents to announce and declare separately the cut off marks for physically handicapped candidates in the recruitment process.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the omission to declare separate cut off marks for persons with benchmark disabilities is not illegal, based on the constitutional scheme and various decisions. It held that reservations for physically handicapped candidates are horizontal reservations and do not mandate the preparation of a separate category with declared cut off marks.
Issues: The main issue was whether the omission to declare separate cut off marks for persons with benchmark disabilities in the recruitment process was illegal.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the Rajasthan Employment of Disabled Persons Rules, 2000 and the constitutional scheme to conclude that reservations for physically handicapped candidates are horizontal reservations and do not mandate the preparation of a separate category with declared cut off marks.
Final Decision: The petitions were dismissed as the court found that the omission to declare separate cut off marks for persons with benchmark disabilities is not illegal.
ORDER :
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.
1. By this common order, these petitions are being disposed off as the issue involved in these petitions is identical. As the question of law arising for consideration is based on similar facts, therefore, for convenience of reference, the facts stated in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9645/2023 are referred to.
2. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9645/2023 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for direction to declare the petitioner eligible and selected under Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (Deaf and Hard of Hearing) category for recruitment to the post of Junior Judicial Assistant for the establishment of Rajasthan High Court and Clerk Gr.II for Rajasthan State Judicial Academy and District Courts.
3. The petitioner seeks to adjudge his perceived omission on the part of the respondents to announce and declare separately the cut off marks for the physically handicapped candidates in the matter of recruitment to various posts for which recruitment was advertised vide advertisement dated 05.08.2022 published by the Rajasthan High Court.
4. Quint-essential facts relevant and necessary for adjudication of controversy involved in this present petition are that the respondents initiated process for recruitment to the post of Junior Judicial Assistant for the establishment of Rajasthan High Court, Clerk Gr. II of Rajasthan State Judicial Academy, Clerks in District Courts as also Clerks in Rajasthan State Legal Services Authority vide advertisement dated 05.08.2022. The recruitment provided reservation both vertically and horizontally for various categories. It also provided for horizontal reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities.
5. The petitioner also submitted his online application for the joint recruitment to the advertised posts under the category of OBC (NCL) and special category of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (Deaf and Hard of Hearing). The petitioner appeared in the written examination held on 19.03.2023. Results of the aforesaid examination was declared on 01.05.2023, which disclosed that the petitioner had obtained 129.1499 marks. The petitioner was not in the list of candidates qualified for type-writing test on computer. No separate cut off marks for the candidates under the benchmark disabilities was published. Aggrieved by the aforesaid omission on the part of the respondents in not declaring the cut off marks for the category of candidates with benchmark disabilities, the petitioner filed this petition.
6. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner obtained 129.1499 marks, which is more than the qualifying marks of 120 prescribed by the respondents. As the respondents did not declare separate cut off marks for the OBC (NCL) category candidates with Benchmark Disabilities (Deaf and Hard of Hearing), the petitioner was illegally and wrongfully excluded from the process of selection. After completion of the process of selection at various stages which included type-writing test after the written examination conducted for short-listed candidates in various reserved category, result was declared on 11.06.2023 and none of the candidates with Benchmark Disabilities (Deaf and Hard of Hearing) category were selected.
7. It has been contended that had the respondents separately declared cut off marks and prepared separate category of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (Deaf and Hard of Hearing) the petitioner and other candidates, who had secured more than minimum qualifying marks at the written examination would have become entitled for being considered on merit basis as the advertisement under Note (v) of Section (B) of Clause 15 clearly provided that Persons with Benchmark Disabilities shall be provided relaxation from the type-writing test on computer and they shall be awarded marks in computer test on the basis of average marks obtained by them in the written test with the option that if any such c
Mahesh Gupta & Ors. Versus Yashwant Kumar Ahirwar & Ors.
Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. Versus State of U.P. & Ors.
Ashok Kumar Giri Versus Union of India & Ors. 2016 (6) SCC 511
Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation Versus Union of India & Anr.
Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors.
Rajesh Kumar Daria Versus Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors.
Saurav Yadav & Ors. Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Union of India & Anr. Versus National Federation of the Blind & Ors.
Reservations for physically handicapped candidates are horizontal reservations and do not mandate the preparation of a separate category with declared cut off marks.
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 met....
The marks obtained at various stages of the selection process are not reflective of the final merit of a candidate, but considered for further participation in the next round.
The petitioner, having participated in the selection process without protest, cannot challenge the same upon being declared unsuccessful. The reservation for PwD is a horizontal reservation, and cand....
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 ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.