In a significant ruling on August 21, 2024, the Supreme Court of India established a clear precedent: candidates who participate in a selection process and are subsequently declared unsuccessful cannot later challenge the advertisement or the selection methodology. This decision, delivered by a bench comprising Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, focused on two appeals related to the recruitment process for Civil Judges and Judicial Magistrates conducted by the Rajasthan High Court.
Case Background:
The controversy began with an advertisement issued by the Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, on July 22, 2021, for the direct recruitment of 120 Civil Judges and Judicial Magistrates. Among the applicants were Rekha Sharma and Ratan Lal, both classified under the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) category. Rekha Sharma, who has a 40% permanent disability affecting her eyesight, and Ratan Lal, who has a 55% locomotor disability in his right upper limb, appeared for the Preliminary Examination but were unsuccessful.
Legal Issues:
The core of the appellants’ argument was that the Rajasthan High Court had failed to disclose the cut-off marks for the PwBD category, which they contended was discriminatory and a violation of their Fundamental Rights under Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Indian Constitution. They also claimed that this omission was contrary to the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, and the Rajasthan Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2018.
Court's Observations:
The Supreme Court examined the arguments and clarified that the reservation for PwBD candidates in this case was an "Overall Horizontal Reservation," not a "Compartmentalised Horizontal Reservation." The Court explained that in an overall horizontal reservation, the reservation applies across all categories—General, OBC, SC, or ST—without creating separate cut-off marks for PwBD candidates. Therefore, PwBD candidates were required to qualify within their respective categories by securing the minimum cut-off marks applicable to those categories.
The Court further noted that neither the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, nor subsequent notifications mandated separate cut-off marks for PwBD candidates. As a result, the omission of a specific cut-off for PwBD candidates could not be considered arbitrary or discriminatory.
Key Observations:
The Court emphasized several critical points, including the fact that candidates who willingly participated in the selection process cannot later question the advertisement or the selection methodology after being declared unsuccessful. The Court found that such a challenge could not be deemed arbitrary or a violation of Articles 14, 16, and 21 of the Constitution.
Decision:
Ultimately, the Supreme Court upheld the Rajasthan High Court's decisions, dismissing both appeals. The bench concluded that there was no illegality or infirmity in the High Court's judgment, reinforcing that the appellants, having engaged in the selection process, could not challenge the results after failing to qualify.
This ruling underscores the importance of transparency and fairness in the recruitment process while reaffirming the principle that candidates cannot contest a process in which they actively participated once the outcome is unfavorable.
AdvoTalks: Talk to Lawyer https://www.advotalks.com/
for More Legal Updates visit our youtube channel
.jpeg&w=80&h=80&crop-to-fit)
