Colony, Nuh, Haryana (Rajasthan). vs The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur

: Mr. A.K. Sharma, Sr. Adv. through VC assisted by Mr. Madhav Dadhich, Adv. in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. Mr. Prateek Kasliwal, Adv. and Ms. Gauri Jasana, Adv. in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12797/2022 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEET PUROHIT 17/09/2025 Order

1. The petitioner in person submits that he had filed a writ petition in 2022, when the respondent did not provide a separate cut-off and merit list for the Specially Abled Persons with Disability (PWD). While the said writ petition was pending, the subsequent [2025:RJ-JP:38070-DB] (2 of 7) [CW-12797/2022] selections were notified and the petitioner participated in the subsequent selection process also. He again preferred D.B Civil Writ Petition No.16138/2024 claiming separate cut-off for Persons with Benchmark Disability. The said Civil Writ Petition was decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 16.10.2024 and the claim of the petitioner was rejected and it was on the basis of another judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ratanlal Vs. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and Anr. dated 21.08.2024.

2. The petitioner has preferred afresh Civil Writ Petition No.17557/2024, now claiming that he had participated in the selection process for Judicial Services Examination and had appeared in the Mains Examination held on 31.08.2024 and

01.09.2024 but his name was not shown in the result declared on

01.10.2024. The petitioner obtained 105.5 marks but was held to be not qualified for interview. Although, he submits that the interviews were conducted of other candidates and the post of Disability Category were left vacant. The petitioner was not granted any interim relief to participate in the interview.

3. He has relied on the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Siddharath Sharma Vs. High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan and Anr in Writ Petition(s) (Civil) No.710/2024 decided on 24.10.2024, wherein the said candidate was allowed to participate in the interview, by interim order dated 24.10.2024. He further relied on another order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rekha Sharma Vs. The Rajasthan High Court and Anr. in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.16764/2024, wherein by interim order dated [2025:RJ-JP:38070-DB] (3 of 7) [CW-12797/2022]

25.10.2024 the said candidate was allowed to provisionally appear in the interview as part of the ongoing interview process. He, therefore, submits that as there was no candidate available, who have cleared in the result for Persons With Disability, he should be considered against the vacant post and his interview should be conducted separately.

4. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the High Court has invited our attention to the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court In Re-recruitment of Visually Impaired in Judicial Services in SMW (C) No.2/2024 record of proceedings dated 07.11.2024, wherein following order was passed:- “1 Pending further orders, we are inclined to issue the following general directions which will govern the selection of candidates to the District Judiciary across the country. These directions shall be observed by the High Courts or, where the Public Service Commissions1 carry out recruitment on behalf of the High Courts, by those PSCs: (i) The High Courts/ PSCs, while making recruitment to judicial service, ought to provide separate qualifying marks for persons with benchmark disabilities2 in the Preliminary Examination. The qualifying marks should 1 “PSC” 2 “PwBD” ordinarily be the same as for SC/ST candidates or can even be lower if so prescribed by the relevant Rules. If the Rules are silent, then the competent authority can lay down such qualifying marks; (ii) After the Preliminary Examination is held, a separate cut-off should be prescribed for [2025:RJ-JP:38070-DB] (4 of 7) [CW-12797/2022] persons with benchmark disability to ensure that candidates equal to 10/15/20 times3 the number of posts reserved for PwBD candidates, are eligible to take the main exam. As done by the High Court of Jharkhand, a separate cut-off can be provided for: (a) blindness and low vision; (b) deaf and hard of hearing; (c) locomotor disability; (d) Others, i.e. PwBD candidates covered by Section 34 (1) (d) & 34 (1) (e); (iii) The High Court/ PSC ought to lay down separate qualifying marks for the Mains Examination for PwBD candidates which can be the same as SC/ST candidates or can be even lower if so required by the relevant Rules. If the Rules are silent, then the competent authority can lay down such qualifying marks; (iv) While declaring the results for the Mains Examination, a separate cut-off should be prescribed for PwBD candidates [who have the qualifying marks] who can appear for the interview so that sufficient persons belonging to PwBD category take the interview which is normally 3/5 3 Depending on the relevant Recruitment Rules times4 the number of vacancies for PwBD candidates. At this stage also the recruiting agency may be able to follow the bifurcation as provided in Section 34 (1) of the Act; and (v) After the interview at the time of final selection, PwBD candidates who clear the minimum qualifying marks in the Mains Examination and Interview ought to be recruited to the service based on horizontal reservation i.e., persons with PwBD who are [2025:RJ-JP:38070-DB] (5 of 7) [CW-12797/2022] on their own merit eligible for General / OBC / SC / ST / EWS seats should be counted towards the total reserved vacancies. 2 Reservations for persons with disabilities shall be horizontal in nature and vacancies for persons with benchmark disability shall be maintained as a separate class. 3 A copy of this order shall be circulated to the Registrars General of the High Courts so that they can be placed before the Chief Justice and the Committee Incharge of recruitment in the District Judiciary for compliance prospectively. 4 The High Courts shall bring their rules in conformity with these directions and report compliance. 5 List the matters after two weeks.“

5. Taking note of the aforesaid order, learned Senior Counsel submits that the High Court Registrar Generals were directed to maintain vacancies for Persons with Benchmark Disability as a separate class and frame the rules in conformity with the directions given therein. Thus, a separate merit list would have to be prepared for Persons with Benchmark Disability in future selections. The judgment having been given a prospective effect would not give benefit to the petitioner, as the petitioner was not granted any relief to participate in the interview.

6. We have considered the submissions.

7. We find that so far as the writ petition of the petitioner for the year 2022 is concerned, although principally the contentions raised by the petitioner would be governed by the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 07.11.2024 and the contentions of there being a separate merit list and benchmark for selection of Persons With Disability is to be principally accepted, but in view of the specific directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court for [2025:RJ-JP:38070-DB] (6 of 7) [CW-12797/2022] making it prospective i.e. w.e.f. 07.11.2024 alone, the relief cannot be granted to the petitioner for the year 2022 selections.

8. Similarly for the selections conducted by the Hon’ble High Court for the year 2024 to the benefit of a separate merit list as claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted. We also notice that relief of participating in the selection process at the interim stage was also not granted. It is to be noticed that after the interviews were conducted for the Judicial Services Examination, 2024, the final result was also declared before passing of the order dated

27.10.2024. In the said result, a separate cut-off marks for Persons with Benchmark Disability was shown as 121.5 and on the said basis two candidates namely Siddharth Sharma and Tishan Jangid, who had been allowed to participate in the interview were selected. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in their cases, therefore, directed the letters of appointment to be issued to the said petitioners.

9. In the aforesaid backdrop, we find that the case of the petitioner is of a peculiar nature. Had the petitioner been allowed to participate in the interview since he had cleared the Mains Examination and had scored 105.5 marks in the Mains Examination, there could have been chances for him to clear the interview too. However, as this Court had rejected his writ petition No.16138/2024 on 16.10.2024 and the petitioner did not challenge the said order before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, he would be deemed to have waived his claim of participating in the interview.

10. We cannot turn back the clock now after the complete selection process is over. The present civil writ petition, which has [2025:RJ-JP:38070-DB] (7 of 7) [CW-12797/2022] been filed separately claiming the same rights as raised in the earlier civil writ petition No.16138/2024 would, otherwise, not be maintainable also no relief can be, therefore, granted in the present writ petition to the petitioner. We leave it open for the petitioner to again participate in the new upcoming selection process and then of course, the High Court would be bound to follow the directions issued by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 07.11.2024 (supra).

11. We, therefore, close the cases with the aforesaid observations.

12. Pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (SANJEET PUROHIT),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J AVINASH/153-154