In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India provided a detailed explanation of the concepts of “Vertical Reservations” and “Horizontal Reservations” while dismissing appeals concerning the recruitment process for Civil Judges in Rajasthan. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, sheds light on the intricate distinctions between these two types of reservations and their application in public employment.
Background of the Case
The case arose from an advertisement issued by the Rajasthan High Court in July 2021 for the direct recruitment of 120 posts of Civil Judges and Judicial Magistrates under the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010. Among the applicants were Rekha Sharma, who has a 40% permanent disability related to her eyes, and Ratan Lal, who has a 55% locomotor disability in his right upper limb. Both candidates, after participating in the Preliminary Examination, were declared unsuccessful. They challenged the result, particularly the absence of a separate cut-off mark for the category of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD).
Their writ petitions were dismissed by the Rajasthan High Court, leading them to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue in the case revolved around whether the Rajasthan High Court was required to declare separate cut-off marks for the PwBD category, which the appellants claimed was necessary to ensure their equal participation in the recruitment process. They argued that the failure to declare these cut-off marks was discriminatory and violated their Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Another key issue was the nature of the reservation for PwBD as a horizontal reservation, which is different from the vertical reservation categories such as Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC).
Supreme Court’s Observations
Justice Bela M. Trivedi, writing for the bench, delved into the difference between vertical and horizontal reservations. Citing the landmark case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, the Court clarified that vertical reservations apply to distinct social categories like SCs, STs, and OBCs under Article 16(4) of the Constitution. In contrast, horizontal reservations, such as those for PwBD, cut across these vertical categories and are applied within them.
The Court highlighted that the reservation for PwBD in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules was an “Overall Horizontal Reservation” rather than a “Compartmentalised Horizontal Reservation.” This means that the reservation was to be applied across the total number of vacancies without compartmentalizing it within each vertical category. Consequently, candidates like Rekha Sharma and Ratan Lal were required to meet the minimum cut-off marks set for their respective vertical categories (EWS and OBC-NCL) to qualify for the next stage of the examination.
The Court rejected the appellants’ argument that separate cut-off marks were mandatory for the PwBD category, noting that neither the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, nor any related notifications required such a provision.
Decision of the Court
Upholding the decisions of the Rajasthan High Court, the Supreme Court dismissed both appeals. The Court concluded that the recruitment process was conducted fairly and in accordance with the established rules. The Court also emphasized that candidates who participated in the selection process without objection cannot later challenge the process once they are found unsuccessful.
The bench observed, “The reservation for persons with disabilities under Clause (1) of Article 16 of the Constitution does not entail a separate cut-off mark but requires these candidates to meet the cut-off marks set for the vertical category to which they belong.”
Case Details:
– Case Number: 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.
