Supreme Court Held That Candidates Who Participated In The Selection Process Cannot Challenge The Advertisement Or Selection Method After Being Declared Unsuccessful.

The Supreme Court In a matter specific to the appellant's argument that separate cut-off marks should have been set for "persons with benchmark disabilities." delivered the judgment; focuses on interpreting the existing reservation policy as it applies to this specific category., and of alledge discriminating and for violations of Fundamental Rights, Rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution, as well as the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, and Rajasthan Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2018., which has resulted failed to include the cut-off marks in the Rajasthan High Court advertisment which publisehed the 120 posts for Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate, both the Appellants namely "Rekha Sharma"; with 40% visual disability, and "Ratan Lal"; with 55% locomotor disability.

The Apex Court further held that the Appellants have failed to substantiate their claim that it was incumbent upon the Respondent to fix the cut off marks for the category of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities. The Court has observed that from the advertisement issued it is evident that “reservation in favour of the Persons with disabilities was an Overall Horizontal Reservation and was not compartmentalised reservation, because out of the total vacancies mentioned in the advertisement, five posts were reserved for the Persons with benchmark disabilities.”

Highlighting the functionality of the system of horizontal reservation the Bench has observed that **“It is quite well settled that the Horizontal Reservation is of two types: - (i) Compartmentalised Horizontal Reservation, and (ii) Overall Horizontal Reservation. The Compartmentalised Horizontal Reservation is such wherein the proportionate vacancies are reserved in each vertical reserved category. However, in case of Overall Horizontal Reservation, the Reservation is provided on the total post advertised i.e. such reservation is not specific to each vertical category.” **

Understanding The Technicalities..

Vertical Reservation: A Vertical reservation refers to reserving a specific percentage of seats or positions for historically disadvantaged groups within the general population. These groups are identified based on factors like caste, tribe, or social and educational backwardness.

Horizontal Reservation: The Horizontal reservation refers to reserving a certain percentage of seats or positions for specific categories of individuals, such as persons with disabilities, women, or ex-servicemen, across all vertical reservation categories. In simpler terms, it cuts across the existing vertical categories.

Benchmark Disablity: According to Section 2(r) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, a "person with benchmark disability" is someone with a disability that is at least 40% as certified by a certifying authority. The act covers 21 types of disabilities, including: -Blindness and low vision. -Deaf and hard of hearing. -Locomotor disability, including cerebral palsy. -Intellectual disability. -Multiple disabilities. -Leprosy cured persons. -Dwarfism. -Mental illness. etc.,

Relying on the explanation of the concept of “Vertical Reservations” and “Horizontal Reservations” enunciated in Indra Sawhney & Others vs. Union of India and Others the Bench ruled that the reservation for Persons with Disabilities is considered a Horizontal Reservation under Article 16(1) rather than a Vertical Reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution. The bench has also taken aid of the observation listed in Anil Kumar Gupta and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others wherein, it was observed that if seats reserved for Horizontal Reservations are proportionally allocated among Vertical (Social) Reservations and are non-transferable, this constitutes Compartmentalized Reservations. In contrast, Overall Reservations must be maintained for special categories, with such reservations not divided among Social/Vertical categories but provided overall, either by adjustment or otherwise, making them transferable.

Thougth, this judgment was not focusing on the general disability and its reservations, but the Apex Court found that while the advertisement specified vacancies for women in various categories, Rajasthan High Court did not specify cut-off marks for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities. And the Supreme Court further ruled that the appellant's counsel failed to prove that such cut-off marks were mandatory under the Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 2010.

While concluding its decision, the Apex Court stated that candidates who participated in the selection process cannot challenge the advertisement or selection method after being declared unsuccessful. The held in favour of the Respondent Court did not violated Articles 14, 16, or 21 of the Constitution, by not declaring cut-off marks for Overall Horizontal Reservation categories.

Coram: Justice Bela M. Trivedi, and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma.
Between: Rekha Sharma, Ratanlal Vs. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr.
Case Details: Civil Appeal No. 5051 Of 2023 With Civil Appeal No. 5052/2023
DOJ: 21.08.2024