[ad_1]
Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Rekha Sharma vs High Court Of Judicature For Rajasthan on 15 April, 2025
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2025 INSC 551 CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 733/2024
REKHA SHARMA PETITIONER (s)
VERSUS
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
RAJASTHAN & ANOTHER RESPONDENT(s)
O R D E R
The Petitioner obtained her law degree on 11.06.2016.
She was issued a disability certificate by the Department
of Medical Health, Government of Rajasthan, certifying 40%
low-vision disability.
2. An advertisement was issued on 22.07.2021 for the
recruitment of Civil Judges. A total of 89 posts were
advertised for the year 2020, including 4 posts reserved
for Persons with Benchmark Disability (PwBDs).
Additionally, 31 posts were advertised for 2021, with 1
post reserved for PwBDs.
3. Pursuant to the advertisement, the Petitioner applied
under the category of Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)
with Benchmark Disability and appeared for the Preliminary
Examination held on 28.11.2021. The results, declared on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
RADHA SHARMA
Date: 2025.04.23
17:33:25 IST
Reason:
11.01.2022, did not specify the cut-off marks
1
for PwBD candidates, although cut-off marks for other
categories were published.
4. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner filed D.B. Civil Writ
Petition No. 1868/2022 before the High Court, which was
dismissed on 06.04.2022. Being aggrieved by the order
dated 06.04.2022, the petitioner filed a Special Leave
Petition before this Court (later numbered as Civil Appeal
No. 5051 of 2023) challenging the non-declaration of
separate cut-off marks for PwBDs in the Preliminary
Examination of Rajasthan Judicial Services, 2021. The same
was dismissed on 21.08.2024.
5. During the pendency of the said appeal, the High
Court issued Detailed Advertisement No. 783/2024 dated
09.04.2024 for recruitment to the post of Civil Judge
Cadre, Rajasthan Judicial Services. The advertisement
notified 222 vacancies (83 for 2022, 57 for 2023, and 82
for 2024), out of which 9 posts were reserved for PwBDs,
including 2 posts for blind and low vision candidates.
6. On 05.06.2024, the Petitioner received her Admit Card
for the Preliminary Examination. The result declared on
15.07.2024 showed that she had qualified under the
vertical category of EWS. Subsequently, the petitioner
received her Admit Card for the Main Examination on
2
12.08.2024. The results of the Main Examination were
declared on 01.10.2024, and the said result did not
include the name of the petitioner among the qualified
candidates.
7. Being aggrieved by the non-declaration of a separate
cut-off marks for PwBDs in the Main Examination, the
Petitioner filed I.A. No. 237785 of 2024 in Suo Motu Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 6 of 2024 before this Court. However,
this Court, in the said Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.
6 of 2024, directed the petitioner to file a substantive
writ petition.
8. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the High Court
through Writ Petition (Civil) No. 16764 of 2024, praying
for separate cut-off marks to be declared for PwBD
candidates to qualify for the interview for the Rajasthan
Judicial Services Exams 2024. The High Court in Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 16764 of 2024 permitted the
petitioner to participate in the interview for the
Rajasthan Judicial Services Exams 2024. Following the
same, the petitioner was issued a call letter for the
Interview for the Rajasthan Judicial Services 2024.
9. Thereafter, on 27.10.2024, the final results of the
Rajasthan Judicial Services Exams 2024 were notified,
3
whereby the cut-off marks for the Mains stage for PwBD
category was set as 121.5 marks. The petitioner had
secured 119 marks. Accordingly, the name of the petitioner
was not found in the above list of selectees. At this
stage, the petitioner contended that the minimum
qualifying marks are 117.25 as per clause 23 of the
Advertisement, which mandates 35% aggregate marks for
SC/ST and PwBD candidates, and 40% for others, hence the
petitioner is eligible for being selected. Being
aggrieved, the petitioner made a representation on
28.10.2024; however, the same was futile. Hence, this
instant writ petition has been preferred by the
petitioner.
10. The petitioner has sought the following reliefs:
“a) Pass a writ order declaring that the denial of
the benefit of reservation for Persons with
Benchmark Disabilities (PWBDs) to the Petitioner
in the result of the Civil Judge Cadre of the
Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination, 2024, as
arbitrary, unlawful, and violative of the
Petitioner’s fundamental rights under Articles
14, 16 and 21 of Constitution of India;
b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the Respondents to revise the cut-off
marks for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities in
a rational manner and thereafter to consider the
candidature of the Petitioner against the same;
and
c) In the alternative to Prayer(b), issue a writ
of mandamus to the Respondents directing them to
appoint the Petitioner against the unfilled
vacancy for blind and low vision candidates in
4
the Rajasthan Judicial Services Examination,
2024.
d) Pass such other and further orders as this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
interest of justice.”
This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner
by invoking Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
11. We have heard learned senior counsel and learned
counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the
respondent-High Court and perused the material on record.
12. During the course of submissions, our attention was
drawn to the reply filed by respondent Nos.1 and 2 by
learned senior counsel and learned counsel for the
petitioner. It was pointed out that two posts were
reserved for candidates having disability of blind and low
vision and in those posts two candidates namely, Anu Meena
and Siddharth Sharma, who have secured higher marks than
the petitioner herein have been accommodated; that
consequently the petitioner herein could not be selected
to the post owing to being less meritorious to Anu Meena
and Siddharth Sharma. In this regard, it was further
contended that Anu Meena belongs to Scheduled Tribe
category and although has a blind and low vision
disability, she ought to have been selected in the
5
Scheduled Tribe category on the basis of vertical
reservation only rather than in the disability category,
if that had been done then the candidate Siddharth Sharma
and the petitioner herein could have been accommodated in
the disability category (blind and low vision) in respect
of which two posts have been reserved. Learned senior
counsel and learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore,
contended that in the absence of Anu Meena being
accommodated in the Scheduled Tribes category and
secondly, the petitioner having secured the minimum
qualifying marks (119 marks), appropriate orders may be
made so as to also accommodate the petitioner in any of
the posts that are available in the disability category
itself as six posts in the disability category not having
been filled have now been carried forward for the next
recruitment. It was contended that alternatively, a
direction may be issued to create a supernumerary post so
as to also accommodate the petitioner herein.
13. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents drew
our attention to the fact that the candidates, Anu Meena
and Siddharth Sharma have been more meritorious in the
recruitment process; they are also persons with blind and
low vision disability. In the circumstances, they have
been accommodated in the disability category which is a
6
form of horizontal reservation. That no fault can be found
with the non-consideration of the petitioner herein in
respect of the said posts as only two posts have been
reserved for persons with blind and low vision disability.
In the circumstances, learned counsel for the respondents
submitted that there is no merit in this Writ Petition and
hence, the same may be dismissed.
14. What emerges from the submissions made on behalf of
the petitioner as well as the respondents herein is the
fact that the petitioner herein has secured the minimum
qualifying marks being 119 which is an undisputed fact.
Secondly, although only two posts were reserved for
persons with disability of being blind and having low
vision, the fact remains that the candidate Anu Meena who
has secured 137 marks belongs to the Scheduled Tribes
category and she could have been considered in that
category, in which event two posts would have been
remained available for persons with blind and low vision
disability and the petitioner herein could have been one
of the persons who could have been accommodated. In this
regard, our attention was drawn to the Office Memorandum
dated 27.09.2022 and particularly paragraph ‘4(i)’ of the
said Office Memorandum which reads as under:
7
“(i). In line with the spirit of the O.M.
No.36035/2/2017-Estt.(Res.), dated 15.1.2018, and
O.M. No.36012/1/2020-Estt(Res-II), dated 17.5.2022
on the subject, the concept of own merit for PwBD
shall be implemented in all direct recruitment
examinations, including the CSE and promotions,
wherever applicable. In other words, PwBD category
candidates selected without relaxed standard, along
with other unreserved candidates, will not be
adjusted against the reserved share of vacancies.
The reserved vacancies will be filled up separately
from amongst the eligible candidates with benchmark
disabilities, who are lower in merit than the last
unreserved candidate in general merit list, but
otherwise found suitable for appointment, if
necessary, by relaxed standards.”
15. Having regard to the purpose and object what has been
stated above, we find that the interest of justice would
be met in this case if we exercise our powers under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India and direct the
respondents herein to accommodate the petitioner herein in
one of the posts, either in any of the vacant posts which
are available in the reserved category for persons with
disability or to create a supernumerary post and appoint
her as a Civil Judge (Junior Division).
16. We say so for the reason that the petitioner has
secured, as seen above, the minimum qualifying marks and
therefore calls for the consideration of this Court. We
also say this having regard to the fact that the
petitioner belongs to the EWS category and is also having
8
blind and low vision disability. In our view, she ought to
be considered for the said post and hence, having regard
to the peculiar facts of this case we direct the
respondents to also appoint the petitioner herein to said
post.
17. We are also conscious of the fact that we have issued
the directions to the respondents herein having regard to
the facts and circumstances of this case and that the
peculiar facts of this case have to be borne in mind so as
to support the directions which we have issued to the
respondents herein. The respondents shall issue the
appointment order in respect of the petitioner herein
within a period of two weeks from when the notification of
appointment of the other candidates is issued by the State
Government.
The Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed
of.
……………………………………………………….,J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
…………………………………………………………,J.
(SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 15, 2025
9
ITEM NO.65 COURT NO.7 SECTION X
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 733/2024
REKHA SHARMA Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN & ANOTHER Respondent(s)
(IA No. 253126/2024 – APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS
IA No. 253124/2024 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 15-04-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHNA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMAFor Petitioner(s) Mr. Shadan Farasat, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, AOR
Mr. Rahul Bajaj, Adv.
Mr. Taha Bin Tasneem, Adv.
Mr. Amar Jain, Adv.
Mr. Harshit Anand, Adv.
Mr. Faizan Ahmad, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Mukul Kumar, AOR
Mr. Abhinandan Basu, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E RThe Writ Petition is disposed of in terms of the
signed non-reportable order.
Pending application(s), of any, shall stand disposed
of.
(RADHA SHARMA) (DIVYA BABBAR) ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
(SIGNED NON-REPORTABLE ORDER IS PLACED ON THE FILE)
10
[ad_2]
Source link