LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Rekha Sharma vs. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur

Not available · 2024 INSC 615Decided 21 Aug 2024
Not available
Justice Bela M. Trivedi · Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Background

The Rajasthan High Court advertised 120 posts of Civil Judge/Judicial Magistrate, with reservations for various categories including persons with benchmark disabilities. The appellants (Rekha Sharma (40% visual disability) and Ratan Lal (55% locomotor disability, decided by a common judgment)) appeared in the Preliminary Examination but were declared unsuccessful. When results were declared, cut-off marks were published for every reserved category except for persons with benchmark disabilities, and both appellants had failed to meet the cut-offs of the general categories (EWS and OBC-NCL respectively) under which they had applied. They challenged this in the Rajasthan High Court as discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21, but their writ petitions were dismissed, leading to these appeals.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court explained that the reservation scheme distinguished between "compartmentalised horizontal reservation" (e.g., women/widows, for which separate cut-offs were fixed) and "overall horizontal reservation" (the category for persons with benchmark disabilities, which is adjusted within whichever general/other category the candidate applied under, rather than having its own separate cut-off). Because persons with benchmark disabilities are absorbed into the category they applied under (here EWS and OBC-NCL) and must meet that category's cut-off, the High Court's decision not to separately publish cut-off marks for the disability category was neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. The Court also invoked the settled principle that candidates who knowingly participate in a selection process cannot later challenge its methodology merely because they were unsuccessful. Finding no illegality in the High Court's judgments, the Supreme Court dismissed both appeals.

Lesson Learnt

Reservation for persons with disabilities is often "overall" (absorbed into the general or other category a candidate applied under) rather than a separately ring-fenced quota with its own cut-off, understanding which type of reservation applies is essential before alleging discrimination in a recruitment result, and candidates who take part in a selection process without objection generally cannot challenge its rules only after failing.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case