Supreme Court Rules on Disability Reservation in Rajasthan Judicial Service Exam

The case of Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr. vs. Neetu Harsh & Anr. revolved around a dispute over disability reservation in the Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination, 2016. The Supreme Court, in its judgment dated 29th August 2019, ruled against the respondent’s claim for a reserved seat under the disability quota, citing procedural errors in her application. The ruling highlights the importance of adhering to established application procedures for reservation benefits.

Background of the Case

The Rajasthan High Court issued a notification inviting applications for 72 posts of Civil Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate. Among these, two posts were reserved for persons with disabilities (PWD). The respondent, Neetu Harsh, applied as a General Category candidate and explicitly marked “No” in the disability section of the application form. However, after the results were declared, she requested consideration under the disability quota, claiming an 80% visual impairment.

Her representation was rejected by the Rajasthan High Court, leading her to file a writ petition. The High Court ruled in her favor, directing authorities to consider her under the disability quota. Aggrieved by this decision, the Rajasthan High Court filed an appeal in the Supreme Court.

Key Issues in Dispute

• Whether the respondent could claim reservation benefits despite applying under the General Category.
• Whether the High Court’s direction to consider her under the PWD quota was legally valid.
• Whether reservation rules under the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (PWD Act) were correctly applied.

Arguments by the Petitioner (Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur)

• The respondent had clearly marked herself as a General Category candidate in her application.
• She did not submit her disability certificate at the time of application.
• The recruitment process had been completed, and appointments were finalized.
• Allowing her claim post-results would set a precedent for procedural manipulation.

Arguments by the Respondent (Neetu Harsh)

• She had an 80% disability, as certified by a government hospital.
• In the 2013 Rajasthan Judicial Service Examination, she was considered under the PWD quota.
• The omission in the application was inadvertent, and authorities should have considered her disability status.
• As one PWD seat remained unfilled, she should be appointed against it.

Supreme Court’s Observations

1. The Importance of Procedural Compliance

The Supreme Court emphasized that reservation benefits must be claimed during the application process. It ruled:

“A candidate who voluntarily applies under the General Category cannot later seek benefits under a reserved category after the selection process is over.”

2. No Automatic Entitlement to Reservation

The Court rejected the argument that past consideration under the PWD quota (in the 2013 exam) entitled the respondent to similar treatment in 2016. It stated:

“Every recruitment process is independent. If a candidate fails to claim a reservation during application, they cannot later alter their status based on previous instances.”

3. Adherence to Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules

The Supreme Court upheld the rules governing judicial service appointments, noting that unfilled disability quota seats must be carried forward rather than reassigned post facto. It observed:

“Once the recruitment process is complete, unfilled disability quota seats should be carried forward to the next cycle rather than being awarded retrospectively.”

4. High Court’s Error in Ordering Consideration

The Supreme Court found the High Court’s ruling flawed as it overlooked procedural integrity. It ruled:

“The High Court’s order directing authorities to consider a candidate under a category she did not originally claim disrupts the recruitment process and is unsustainable.”

Final Verdict

• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s ruling.
• The respondent’s claim under the disability quota was rejected.
• The Rajasthan High Court’s recruitment process was upheld as valid.
• Future unfilled PWD quota vacancies were directed to be carried forward to the next recruitment cycle.

Implications of the Judgment

• Reaffirms that reservation claims must be made during the application process.
• Prevents post-results claims that could undermine procedural integrity.
• Ensures adherence to the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules regarding unfilled vacancies.
• Sets a precedent for other government recruitment processes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that procedural compliance is paramount in government recruitment. By rejecting post-selection reservation claims, the judgment ensures fairness in competitive exams while upholding reservation policies. This case serves as an important precedent for future disputes related to disability reservations in public service examinations.

Petitioner Name: Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr..
Respondent Name: Neetu Harsh & Anr..
Judgment By: Justice A.S. Bopanna, Justice R. Banumathi.
Place Of Incident: Rajasthan.
Judgment Date: 29-08-2019.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Rajasthan High Court vs Neetu Harsh & Anr. Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 29-08-2019.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Judgment by A. S. Bopanna
See all petitions in Judgment by R. Banumathi
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments August 2019
See all petitions in 2019 judgments

See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category