Supreme Court Pulls Up Rajasthan For Failing To Implement 1% Reservation For Blind Candidates In 1999 RPSC Recruitment

A bench of Justice Abhay S Oka, Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice Augustine George Masih was dealing with an appeal by a candidate suffering from 98 percent blindness who was not called for an interview despite being the only blind candidate who appeared for the Main Exam of the Rajasthan State and Sub-ordinate Services Combined Competitive Exam, 1999.

The Supreme Court has listed the matter on September 25, 2024 with a view to ensure the appellant does not suffer injustice.

“we find that it is an admitted position that the respondent State of Rajasthan did not implement the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (for short, "the 1995 Act")…Admittedly, there is no notification issued by the State in exercise of powers under proviso to Section 33 of the 1995 Act. In absence of the notification under the proviso, it was the duty of the State to provide reservation as per Section 33 of the 1995 Act. 1 per cent posts ought to have been reserved for persons suffering from blindness or low vision. Thus, there is a complete violation of the provisions of the 1995 Act on the part of the State Government”, the Court observed.

Section 33 mandates that every appropriate government must reserve at least 3 percent of vacancies in every establishment for persons with disabilities which is divided as follows:

• 1 percent of vacancies are reserved for persons with blindness or low vision.
• 1 percent are reserved for persons with hearing impairment.
• 1 percent are reserved for persons with locomotor disability or cerebral palsy.

The proviso to section 33 states that the government may exempt certain establishments from these reservation requirements through a notification, based on the specific type of work conducted in the establishment and under conditions specified in the notification.

As per the State's counter affidavit, the recruitment conducted in 1999 was based on the Rajasthan Employment of Physically Handicapped Rules, 1976, which did not provide for reservations in Group 'A' and 'B' posts, the Court noted.

The State's affidavit further stated that under the rules in force during the 1999 recruitment, reservations for physically handicapped persons were only applicable in subordinate services and not in State services.

The affidavit cited the Supreme Court judgment in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, which classified reservations for physically handicapped persons as "horizontal reservations" and indicated that such reservations should be considered within the appropriate category, such as SC, ST, or general. The affidavit argued that the petitioner, being a general category candidate, was given a 5 percent relaxation in cut-off marks but still did not qualify.

Background

The appellant challenged the recruitment process of RPSC's RAS/RTS Combined Competitive Examination, 1999. The appellant applied under the blind category, passed the Preliminary Examination, but was not called for the interview after the Main Examination of 1999, despite being the only blind candidate.

The appellant argued that as per the 1976 Rules, 3 percent of the vacancies were reserved for physically handicapped candidates, with 1 percent specifically for blind candidates. The appellant's case was that the RPSC should have created a separate merit list for physically handicapped candidates similar to reserved categories for SC/ST/OBC.

The RPSC contended that physically handicapped candidates were not a separate category but should be placed within their respective categories with a 5 percent concession in marks.

The Single Judge held that horizontal reservations for physically handicapped persons should be considered within the original category of the candidate. The Judge noted that despite the 5 percent concession, the appellant did not meet the cut-off marks.

The Division bench in the intra court upheld the Single bench decision and dismissed the appeal with costs of Rs 5,000. Thus, the appellant filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Appearance

For the petitioner - Ms. V. Mohana - Sr. Adv., Mr. Santosh Kumar Rungta - Sr. Adv., Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara - AOR, Mr. Abhijeet Singh - Adv., Mr. Anirudh Singh - Adv., Mr. Dhananjai Shekhwat - Adv., Mr. Aishwary Mishra - Adv., Mr. Dashrath Singh - Adv., Ms. Anjali Saxena - Adv.

For the respondents - Mr. Amit Lubhaya - Adv., Mr. Aniruddha Deshmukh - AOR, Ms. Nidhi Jaswal - AOR, Mr. Shiv Mangal Sharma - A.A.G., Ms. Nitika Rawat - Adv., Mr. D. K. Devesh - AOR

Case no. – Civil Appeal No. 11352/2013

Case Title – Bhuvaneshwar Singh v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Anr.