Rajasthan High Court

Noorul Hasan Son Of Shri Abdul Salam vs The Registrar (Examination) ... on 16 October, 2024

Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Ganesh Ram Meena

[2024:RJ-JP:43330-DB]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16138/2024

Noorul Hasan Son Of Shri Abdul Salam, Aged About 32 Years,
Resident Of House Behind Ioc/fakru Petrol Pump, Hidayat Colony,
Nuh, Haryana
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                       Versus
The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur
(Rajasthan)
                                                                    ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Noorul Hasan, petitioner in person For Respondent(s) : Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. assisted by Mr. Vishnu Kant Sharma, Adv.

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA

Order

16/10/2024

1. Heard on admission.

2. Though the petitioner in person vehemently submits that in

order to give effect to reservation for persons with benchmark

disability, separate cut-off was required to be declared, we are

unable to accept the submissions in view of several judicial

pronouncements of this Court. In the case of Rohitash Kumar

Jat vs. Rajasthan High Court and other connected petitions,

identical issue was raised for consideration of this Court. Relying

upon earlier decisions, it was held as below:

"11. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the issue raised in this petition is squarely covered in series of decisions which have been referred to by learned counsel for the respondents. Relying upon two earlier decisions in the case of Himanshu Kachhwaha Versus Rajasthan Public

[2024:RJ-JP:43330-DB] (2 of 4) [CW-16138/2024]

Service Commission (supra) as also Bhuvaneshwar Singh Chauhan Versus Rajasthan Public Service Commission (supra), a Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Vikram Singh Chouhan Versus State of Rajasthan (supra) examined identical issue where a prayer was made to declare illegal omission on the part of the recruiting agency to announce the cut off marks for the physically handicapped candidates. Taking note of the scheme of the Rules provided for horizontal reservation for persons with disabilities under Rajasthan Employment of Disabled Persons Rules, 2000 and further, taking into consideration that number of candidates to be admitted in the examination will be limited to 15 times of the total number of vacancies category-wise, placing reliance upon the decision of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney Versus Union of India (supra), it was held that reservations in favour of Schedules Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes are under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India and classified as vertical reservation, whereas reservations in favour of physically handicapped candidates are under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India and referable as horizontal reservations. Authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court in this regard that horizontal reservations cut across the vertical reservations and are thus construed as inter-locking reservations was also noted. It was so observed in the case of Vikram Singh Chouhan Versus State of Rajasthan (supra), which reads as below:-

"........It was clarified that 3% reservation of the vacancies in favour of physically handicapped persons would be one relatable to Article 16(1) and the persons selected against this quota would be placed in the appropriate category i.e. if he belongs to SC category he would be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments and similarly, if he belongs to open competition (OC) category, he would be placed in that category by making necessary adjustments. Their Lordships enounced that after providing these horizontal reservations, the percentage of reservations in favour of OBC category should remain the same.

The above authoritative judicial edict thus clearly distinguishes these two types of reservations and the consequence attendant thereon. Patently, physically handicapped persons if selected against their quota of reserved vacancies, would eventually be placed in the appropriate category i.e. SC/ST/General/Women and would stand assimilated

[2024:RJ-JP:43330-DB] (3 of 4) [CW-16138/2024]

in those categories, so much so that the percentage of reservation in favour of backward class of citizens remains unaltered."

12. The conclusion arrived thereafter on such consideration was that omission to declare separate cut off marks for persons with benchmark disabilities is not illegal in view of emphatic and unequivocal exposition of law in the case of Indra Sawhney Versus Union of India (supra) distinguishing vertical and horizontal reservations in the context of the constitutional scheme therefor as enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution of India and consequential adjustments of those availing horizontal reservations in the respective categories i.e. General/SC/ST/OBC.

13. Later on, another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ratanlal Versus Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur (supra), again repelled the contention that the respondents therein while conducting recruitment for appointment to the post in the Civil Judge Cadre were required to declare separate cut off marks for the category of persons with benchmark disability, principally relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney Versus Union of India (supra) and Vikram Singh Chouhan Versus State of Rajasthan (supra).

14. In view of above considerations and factual premise of the present case, the other decisions in the cases of Union of India & Anr. Versus National Federation of the Blind & Ors., 2013 (10) SCC 772, Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Ors. Versus Union of India & Ors., 2016 (13) SCC 153, and Ashok Kumar Giri Versus Union of India & Ors. 2016 (6) SCC 511, Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation Versus Union of India & Anr., 2017 (14) SCC 1, Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. Versus State of U.P. & Ors., 1995 (5) SCC 173 and Indian Banks' Association, Bombay & Ors. Versus Devkala Consultancy Service & Ors. 2004 (11) SCC 1 also do not support the contentions as raised by the counsel for the petitioner in the present case.

15. It would thus be seen that this Court has taken consistent view on this aspect.

16. Reliance placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Mahesh Gupta Versus Yashwant Kumar Ahirwar (supra) is misplaced both on facts and law. In that case, while dealing with a case relating to special recruitment drive for filling up vacant reserved posts of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, where respondents had advertised eight posts for reserved category in Scheduled Caste and eight posts for the handicapped persons, respondents showed the reserved

[2024:RJ-JP:43330-DB] (4 of 4) [CW-16138/2024]

categories separately in the body of advertisement. Contradictory stand was taken by the respondents therein. On facts, it was found that State had adopted a policy for filling up the reserved posts for handicapped persons as special drive and therefore, such a reservation fall within clause (1) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India had nothing to do with the object and purpose sought to be achieved by the reasons of "clause (4)" thereof. In that context, it was held that a disabled is a disabled and the question of making any further reservation on the basis of caste, creed or region ordinarily may not arise as they constitute a special class.

17. Though the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner finds support from the decision of the Division Bench judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Saroj Dehariya Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh (supra), in the light of consistent view taken by the Division Benches of this Court in several decisions, which have been referred to and cited hereinabove, we are not inclined to take a different view on the basis of decision in the case of Saroj Dehariya Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh."

3. Learned Senior counsel on advance copy appearing for the

respondents would submit that the order passed by this Court in

the case of Ratanlal vs. Rajasthan High Court & Anr. was

assailed by filing Civil Appeal No.5052/2023- Ratanlal Vs.

The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr., before the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, which too was dismissed on 21.08.2024.

4. In view of above consideration, we are unable to grant any

relief to the petitioner and the petition is accordingly dismissed.

(GANESH RAM MEENA),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ

NAVAL KISHOR/Satyendra-47