Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
10. Apart from the fact that there was nothing provided in the advertisement for the fixation of cut off marks for the Persons with benchmark disabilities, who fall under the Overall Horizontal Reservation, the learned counsels for the appellant have also failed to point out from the Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 2010 under which the recruitment process was undertaken, that such fixation of cut off marks for the Persons with benchmark disabilities was mandatory. The reliance placed by the learned counsels for the appellants on the notification dated 14.10.2021 issued by the Rajasthan Government is also not helpful to them in as much as the said notification was given effect to, in the notification dated 16.04.2024 amending the RJS Rules, 2010, providing relaxation in age and concession of 5% in marks in favour of Persons with benchmark disabilities. None of the said notifications or amendment in the RJS Rules, 2010 make it mandatory on part of the respondents to declare separate cut off marks for the Persons with benchmark disabilities.
11. It cannot be gainsaid that the said Act of 2016 is a social legislation enacted for the benefit of the Persons with disabilities and its provisions must be interpreted in order to enhance its objectives, so that the Persons with disabilities enjoy the right to equality, life with dignity and respect for his or her integrity equally with others as contemplated under the Act. However, there is no such provision either in the said Act of 2016 or in the Rules of 2018 framed by the State of Rajasthan, which could be said to have been violated by the respondents by not fixing the cut off marks for the Persons with benchmark disabilities.
12. Undisputedly, the reservation for the Persons with disabilities has been treated as Horizontal Reservation i.e. the reservation under Clause (1) of Article 16, and not the Vertical reservation i.e. the 498 reservation under Clause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution of India. In the case of Indra Sawhney & Others vs. Union of India and Others1 the concept of “Vertical Reservations” and “Horizontal Reservations” has been aptly explained. The relevant paragraph 812 thereof reads as under: – “812. We are also of the opinion that this rule of 50% applies only to reservations in favour of backward classes made under Article 16(4). A little clarification is in order at this juncture: all reservations are not of the same nature. There are two types of reservations, which may, for the sake of convenience, be referred to as ‘vertical reservations’ and ‘horizontal reservations’. The reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes under Article 16(4) may be called vertical reservations whereas reservations in favour of physically handicapped under clause (1) of Article 16 can be referred to as horizontal reservations. Horizontal reservations cut across the vertical reservations — what is called interlocking reservations. To be more precise, suppose 3% of the vacancies are reserved in favour of physically handicapped persons; this would be a reservation relatable to clause (1) of Article 16. The persons selected against this quota will be placed in the appropriate category; if he belongs to SC category he will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments; similarly, if he belongs to open competition (OC) category, he will be placed in that category by making necessary adjustments. Even after providing for these horizontal reservations, the percentage of reservations in favour of backward class of citizens remains — and should remain — the same. This is how these reservations are worked out in several States and there is no reason not to continue that procedure.”
13. Thus, in view of the said clarification made in Indra Sawhney, there remains no doubt that the reservation for persons with disabilities would be relatable to Clause (1) of Article 16 and the persons [1992] Supp. 2 SCR 454 : 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217 [2024] 8 S.C.R. Rekha Sharma v. The Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr. selected against this quota will be placed in appropriate category i.e. if he/she belongs to Scheduled Category, he/she will be placed in that category by making necessary adjustments, and if he/she belongs to open category, necessary adjustments will be made in the open category.
14. The concept of Overall Reservations and Compartmentalised Reservations is also aptly explained by this Court in Anil Kumar Gupta and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others.2 It has been observed therein 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.
15. 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. [1995] Suppl. 2 SCR 396 : (1995) 5 SCC 173 500
16. As well settled, the candidates who consciously took part in the process of selection cannot be permitted to question the advertisement or the methodology adopted by the respondents for making selection, on their having been declared as unsuccessful in the Preliminary Examinations. 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.
17. In that view of the matter, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgements and orders passed by the High Court. Both the appeals are dismissed accordingly. Result of the case: Appeals dismissed. †Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain