1. Challenge to recruitment process — Non-implementation of horizontal reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities under Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 485
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, SANDEEP SHAH, JJ.
Anmol Lohia, S/o. Anand Kishore Lohia - Petitioner
Versus
The Rajasthan High Court, Through The Registrar General – Respondent
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20805 of 2024
Decided On : 06-03-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Nishit Shah with Mr. Shreyansh Rathi.
For the Respondent: Ms. Abhilasha Kumbhat.
For the Petitioner: Mr. Nishit Shah with Mr. Shreyansh Rathi.
For the Respondent: Ms. Abhilasha Kumbhat.
Horizontal reservation for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities is adjusted within vertical categories and does not mandate separate merit lists or cut-offs at the written examination stage. Candidates participating in the process are estopped from challenging the methodology after being declared unsuccessful.
Headnote:(A) Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Section 34 - Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Horizontal reservation for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) - Non-declaration of separate cut-off marks for PwBD candidates at the stage of written examination does not render the recruitment process illegal - Horizontal reservation operates across vertical categories and candidates are adjusted within their respective categories, thereby not mandating a distinct merit list or separate cut-off at the initial screening stage. (Paras 10, 12 and 15)
(B) Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 - Estoppel - Candidates who consciously participate in a selection process cannot challenge the methodology or the declaration of cut-off marks after being declared unsuccessful. (Para 13)
(C) Delay and Laches - Extraordinary jurisdiction is discretionary - Interference after the recruitment process has concluded and appointments have been made is unwarranted unless manifest illegality is demonstrated, as it unsettles administrative certainty and affects third-party rights. (Paras 18 and 19)
Facts of the case:
A candidate with 70% permanent disability applied for recruitment to clerical posts under the PwBD category. While the candidate secured marks above the minimum qualifying threshold, they were not shortlisted for the skill test as their score was substantially lower than the general category cut-off. The candidate challenged the recruitment process, alleging improper implementation of horizontal reservation under the statutory mandate and the failure to declare a separate cut-off for the disability category at the shortlisting stage.
Findings of Court:
The candidate's marks were far below the zone of consideration, making the challenge to the methodology an academic exercise. The court found that the recruitment followed the settled legal position that horizontal reservation does not require separate cut-offs at the written stage. Moreover, the process had attained finality with appointments already made.
Issues: Whether the failure to declare separate cut-off marks for PwBD candidates at the written examination stage violates the statutory mandate of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and whether a candidate is entitled to relief after participating in the process and after appointments were made.
Ratio Decidendi: Horizontal reservation for PwBD is to be adjusted within vertical categories and does not require a separate merit list. Candidates who participate in the process are estopped from challenging the methodology upon failure. Furthermore, delayed challenges to concluded recruitment processes are generally not entertained under Article 226 unless manifest illegality is shown.
Result: The instant writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- constitutional law
- practice and procedure
- statutory interpretation
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner: horizontal reservation not implemented in letter and spirit. Respondents: process conducted strictly as per law; no separate cut-off required. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Petitioner's marks far below cut-off; no prejudice shown; horizontal reservation does not require separate cut-off; settled law applies. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 )
4. Horizontal reservation under Section 34, RPwD Act does not mandate separate cut-off marks at written examination stage; operates across vertical categories. (Para 12 , 13 )
5. Writ petition dismissed — No illegality in advertisement or results; no interference under Article 226. (Para 21 , 22 )
6. Is declaration of separate cut-off marks required for PwBD candidates at the written examination stage under horizontal reservation?
No. Horizontal reservation does not mandate preparation of a separate merit list or distinct cut-off at the written examination stage; it operates across vertical categories. (Para 12 , 13 )
7. Can a candidate who participated in a selection process challenge its methodology after being declared unsuccessful?
No. A candidate who consciously participates with full knowledge of the selection process is estopped from challenging the advertisement or methodology after being declared unsuccessful. (Para 13 )
8. What is the effect of delay and laches in challenging a concluded public recruitment process?
Once selection is concluded and appointments made, interference at a belated stage unsettles administrative certainty and prejudicially affects third-party rights; courts ordinarily decline relief. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 )
JUDGMENT :
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
1. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition claiming the following reliefs:
“It is therefore, humbly prayed, that the Hon'ble Court may kindly be allowed the writ petition by an appropriate writ, order or direction,
i. By appropriate writ / order / directions, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to declare, quash and set aside the Advertisement No. RHC Jodhpur/ Examination Cell / LDC Grade II / 2022 / 2248 dated 05.08.2022 to the extent that the said advertisement is not in consonance with the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016; AND
ii. By appropriate writ / order / directions, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to quash the Written Examination Result dated 01.05.2023 (Annex. &) to the extent that the same is against the provisions of Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016; AND
iii. By appropriate writ / order / directions, this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the Final Result dated 11.06.2023 (Annex. 11) and Corrigendum Result dated 21.06.2023 (Annex. 12) to the extent that the same is against the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016; AND
iv. By appropriate writ / order / directions, the Respondents be directed to complete the process of Examination in accordance with the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 and the Petitioner be awarded appointment on the post of Jr. Judicial Assistant / Junior Assistant / Clerk Grade-II in pursuance of Advertisement No. RHC Jodhpur/ Examination Cell/ LDC Grade II/2022/2248 dated 05.08.2022;
v. The Respondents may kindly be directed to accord appointment to the petitioner on the post of Jr. Judicial Assistant / Junior Assistant / Clerk Grade-II 2020 with all consequential benefits;
vi. Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon’ble Court considers just and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner;”
2. The respondents issued an Advertisement dated 05.08.2022 for joint recruitment to the posts of Junior Judicial Assistant for the establishment of the Rajasthan High Court, Clerk Grade-II for the Rajasthan State Judicial Academy, Clerks in District Courts and Clerks in the Rajasthan State Legal Services Authorities. The advertisement provided for vertical as well as horizontal reservations, including reservation for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities in terms of the provisions of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
2.1. The petitioner, claiming himself to be a person suffering from 70% permanent disability falling under the category of Blind and Low Vision, submitted his online application under the PwBD category. He was issued an admit card and appeared in the written examination conducted on 12.03.2023. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was granted compensatory time during the examination on account of his disability.
2.2. The result of the written examination was declared on 01.05.2023. The petitioner secured 138.9152 raw marks and 139.2503 normalized marks. However, he was not declared qualified for the Computer Test (Speed and Efficiency Test), as he did not fall within the range of candidates shortlisted category-wise for the next stage of the recruitment process.
2.3. Subsequently, the final result was declared on 11.06.2023 and a corrigendum was issued on 21.06.2023. The petitioner was not selected.
2.4. The petitioner earlier preferred S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15378/2023 challenging the recruitment process; however, the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 02.12.2024 with liberty to file afresh. The present writ petition has thereafter been filed assailing the advertisement, the written examination result, the final result and the corrigendum, primarily on the ground that the reservation for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities, particularly under the category of Blind and Low Vision, was not properly implemented.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailed
