In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India has firmly established that candidates who have participated in a selection process and were declared unsuccessful cannot later challenge the advertisement or the selection methodology. This landmark judgment, delivered on August 21, 2024, by a bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, addressed two appeals against the Rajasthan High Court’s recruitment process for Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate positions.
Background of the Case:
The case originated from an advertisement issued by the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, on July 22, 2021, for the direct recruitment of 120 Civil Judges and Judicial Magistrates. Among the applicants were Rekha Sharma and Ratan Lal, both of whom belong to the category of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD). Rekha Sharma, who has a 40% permanent disability in relation to her eyes, and Ratan Lal, with a 55% locomotor disability in his right upper limb, appeared for the Preliminary Examination but were declared unsuccessful.
Legal Issues:
The core legal issue revolved around the appellants’ contention that the Rajasthan High Court failed to disclose the cut-off marks for the PwBD category, which they argued was discriminatory and violated their Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India. They further argued that this omission was in contravention of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, as well as the Rajasthan Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2018.
Courtโs Observations:
The Supreme Court, after considering the arguments, emphasized that the reservation for PwBD candidates in this case was an “Overall Horizontal Reservation,” not a “Compartmentalised Horizontal Reservation.” The Court explained that in an overall horizontal reservation, the reservation is not specific to each vertical category but applies across the board. Therefore, PwBD candidates had to qualify within their respective categoriesโwhether General, OBC, SC, or STโby securing the minimum cut-off marks for that category.
The Court further clarified that the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, and subsequent notifications did not mandate the fixation of separate cut-off marks for PwBD candidates. Consequently, the omission to declare a specific cut-off for the PwBD category could not be deemed arbitrary or discriminatory.
Important Observations:
The Court made several key observations, including:
– “The candidates who consciously took part in the process of selection cannot be permitted to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the respondents for making selection, on their having been declared as unsuccessful in the Preliminary Examinations.”
– “Such action could neither be said to be arbitrary nor violative of Article 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.”
Decision:
The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the Rajasthan High Court, dismissing both appeals. The bench concluded that there was no illegality or infirmity in the High Court’s judgment and that the appellants, having participated in the selection process, could not challenge the result after being declared unsuccessful.
Also Read
Case Details:
– Case Numbers: Civil Appeal Nos. 5051 and 5052 of 2023
– Bench: Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
– Appellants: Rekha Sharma and Ratan Lal
– Respondents: The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr.
– Counsel for Respondents: Senior Counsel Ms. Pinky Anand
