Not Declaring Separate Cut-Off For PWD Category Falling Under Overall Horizontal Reservation Isn't Arbitrary : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (Aug. 21) held that non-fixation of the cut-off marks for the category of persons with benchmark disability falling under an Overall Horizontal Reservation could neither be said to be arbitrary nor violative of the Fundamental Rights.

The Court said that when a particular category falls under an overall reservation, than it would not be incumbent on the selection authorities to show the cut-off marks for such category.

The Court explained 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.

“The appellants after they having found that their names do not appear in the list of successful candidates of Preliminary Examination, could not have questioned the result on the ground that the respondents had not declared the cut off marks for the Persons with benchmark disabilities. As stated earlier, the respondents have declared the cut off marks for the persons falling under Compartmentalised Horizontal Reservation and not for the Overall Horizontal Reservation under which the appellants fall. Such action could neither be said to be arbitrary nor violative of Article 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”, the bench comprising Justice Bela M Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma observed.

The case relates to the direct recruitment to the Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate post by the High Court of Rajasthan for which an advertisement was released. The Appellants who were persons with benchmark disability falling under Overall Reservation were not successful in the preliminary examination.

The Appellant's bone of contention was that the respondents while declaring the result of the Preliminary Examination showing the cut-off marks for each of the categories mentioned in the advertisement in question, had not shown the cut-off marks for the category of Persons with benchmark disabilities.

Affirming the decision of the High Court, the Judgment authored by Justice Bela M. Trivedi negated the Appellant's argument that it would be incumbent on part of the respondents to show the cut-off marks for the category of Persons with benchmark disabilities, particularly when the cut-off marks for each of the categories mentioned in the advertisement in question were shown.

The Court said so because the candidates appearing as persons with benchmark disabilities would form a special category of reservation (Overall Reservation) who have to be provided overall seats reserved for them by adjusting them against any of the Social/Vertical reservations and it would not be necessary for the respondents to release cut-off marks for such a category of reservation.

Reference was made to the case of Anil Kumar Gupta and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others reported in (1995) 5 SCC 173 where the Supreme Court explained the concept of Overall Reservations and Compartmentalised Reservations.

“It has been observed therein (Anil Kumar Gupta's case) that where the seats reserved for the Horizontal Reservations are proportionately divided amongst the Vertical (Social) Reservations and are not intertransferable, it would be a case of Compartmentalised Reservations, whereas in the Overall Reservation, while allocating the special reservation candidates to their respective social reservation category, the Overall Reservation in favour of special reservation categories has to be honoured. Meaning thereby the special reservations cannot be proportionately divided among the Vertical (Social) reservation categories, and the candidates eligible for special reservation categories have to be provided overall seats reserved for them, either by adjusting them against any of the Social/Vertical reservations or otherwise, and thus they are intertransferable.”, the Court observed.

After perusing the recruitment advertisement, the Court found that only the reservation for women (widow or divorcee) was compartmentalized reservation wherein separate cut-off marks were released for the women belonging to the General category and OBC-NCL (non-creamy layer), and not the persons with bench disabilities who were provided Overall Reservation.

“As could be seen from the advertisement itself, the reservation for women (widow or divorcee) was compartmentalised reservation, whereas the reservation for the persons with benchmark disabilities was overall reservation. The respondents therefore in the notice declaring result of Preliminary Examination had rightly shown the cut-off marks for all the categories except for the category of persons with benchmark disabilities. The Persons with benchmark disabilities for being adjusted in the category for which he or she had applied, had to secure the minimum cut off marks fixed for such category under which he or she had applied. Such fixation of cut off marks for other categories and non fixation of cut off marks for the category of persons with benchmark disability could neither be said to be arbitrary nor violative of any of the Fundamental Rights of the appellants.”, the Court observed.

“As stated earlier, the respondents have declared the cut-off marks for the persons falling under Compartmentalised Horizontal Reservation and not for the Overall Horizontal Reservation under which the appellants fall. Such action could neither be said to be arbitrary nor violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.”, the court concluded.

Accordingly, the appeals were dismissed and the impugned decision of the High Court was upheld.

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) Mr. Sridhar Potaraju, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu S. Pandey, Adv. Mr. Gaichangpou Gangmei, AOR Mr. Ishat Singh, Adv. Ms. Nisha Pandey, Adv. Mr. Aayush, Adv. Mr. Maitreya Mahaley, Adv. Mr. Lalit Mohan, Adv. Mr. Yimyanger Longkumer, Adv. Ms. Niharika Singh, Adv. Mr. Sai Swaroop, Adv. Mr. Sameer Shrivastava, AOR Ms. Yashika Varshney, Adv. Dr. Sangeeta Verma, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Ms. Pinky Anand, Sr. Adv. Mr. Samrat Pasricha, Adv. Ms. Saudamini Sharma, Adv. Ms. Asees Jasmine Kaur, Adv. Mr. Mukul Kumar, AOR

Case Title: REKHA SHARMA VERSUS THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JODHPUR & ANR., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5051 OF 2023 (and connected matter)

Click here to read/download the judgment