A bench comprising Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra passed an interim order on October 24 allowing a candidate with blindness to attend the interview for the selection of Civil Judges in Rajasthan.

The petitioner, Siddharth Sharma, who is a blind candidate, was denied to appear for the interview round after getting 113.5 marks in his mains exams because he failed to fulfil the cut-off for the EWS category to which he belongs.

The petitioner argued that he had fulfilled the criteria for the interview round in terms of the proviso to clause 23 of the scheme and syllabus of the examination. The said clause states that a minimum of 30% of marks in each of the Law Papers and 35% of marks in the aggregate for the Main Examination for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates and for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities is required to be allowed for the interview. It was also argued that his exclusion contravened established reservation norms for candidates with disabilities, particularly horizontal reservation policies, which should allow PWD candidates to compete within their own category regardless of other vertical reservations.

The Court referred to Rule 10(4) of the Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, which mandates reservation for PWD candidates in line with the Rajasthan Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2018. These rules provide a 4% reservation for PWD candidates in public recruitment processes.

In evaluating the case, the Court cited Indira Sawhney v. Union of India, which clarified that reservations for physically disabled individuals are horizontal, or “interlocking,” cutting across vertical categories like SC, ST, or EWS. This enables PWD candidates to be considered within the category they belong to, without facing additional barriers set for other groups.

"The Court in Indira Sawhney has clarified that reservations for the physically handicapped 'category' are horizontal in nature in the sense they cut across vertical reservations. The persons selected against this quota will be placed in the appropriate category so that if a candidate, for instance, belongs to the Scheduled Caste category, such a candidate will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments," the Court observed.

Given that Sharma fulfilled the eligibility criteria for the PWD category, the Court instructed the Rajasthan High Court to include him in the interview process. Noting that the interviews were to conclude by October 26, the Bench issued an urgent directive:

"In this backdrop, since the interviews will conclude on Saturday (26 October 2024), we direct that the petitioner shall be called for interview as part of the ongoing interview process and shall be duly assessed by the Committee during the course of the interview," the order stated.

The Rajasthan High Court was further directed to submit a counter affidavit by November 1, with the matter scheduled for a final hearing on November 4, 2024.

Case Details: Siddharth Sharma v. High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan, WP(C)/710/2024

Advocate(s) For Petitioner: Sr. Adv. Shadan Farasat, AOR Talha Abdul Rahman, Adv. Rupali Samuel, Adv. M Shaz Khan, Adv. Taha Bin Tasneem, Adv. Sudhanshu Tewari, Adv. Rafid Akhter, Adv. Faizan Ahmad, Adv. Prannv Dhawan

Advocate(s) For Respondent: Adv. Mukul Kumar