RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT JODHPUR vs. NEETU HARSH

REPORTABLE                      IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION   CIVIL APPEAL NO.    6696     OF 2019 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.18973 of 2017) Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Anr.       .…Appellant(s) Versus Neetu Harsh & Anr.                       ….  Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T A.S. Bopanna,J.                 Leave granted.      2.   The appellants herein were the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in the writ petition bearing DBCWP No.692 of 2017 which was considered and disposed of by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur.   Through the order dated 04.05.2017 the writ petition was allowed and Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date: 2019.08.29 14:02:05 IST Reason: the   appellants   herein   were   directed   to   consider   the candidature   of   the   private   respondent   herein   for Page 1 of 23 appointment   on   the   post   of   Civil   Judge­cum­Judicial Magistrate   in   the   Civil   Judge   Cadre   against   the   two vacancies   reserved   for   disabled   candidates   in   the Rajasthan   Judicial   Service   Examination,   2016   and provide appointment as per merit of said category, if she is otherwise eligible.  The said order and direction of the High Court is assailed herein primarily on the contention that   the   private   respondent   herein   had   not   applied against   the   vacancies   advertised   for   the   physically challenged     category   but   had   applied   as   a   General Category candidate and as per the merit list she was not entitled to be appointed as there were more meritorious candidates in the General Category and the appointment having been made, the process has been completed. 3. The brief facts are that the appellants herein had issued   a   Notification   calling   for   applications   for recruitment   to   the   post   of   Civil   Judge­cum­Judicial Magistrate in the Civil Judge Cadre for 72 posts.  Among the same, two posts were kept reserved for persons with disabilities.     The   private   respondent   herein   had Page 2 of 23 responded   to   the   said   Notification   but   filed   the application indicating her category as “General” and in the column provided for indication of the claim under the Differently Abled Category had mentioned “No”.   Hence, for all purposes private respondent herein was considered as   a   General   category   candidate   and   had   accordingly appeared   for   the   preliminary   examination.     On   being declared   successful   she   had   appeared   for   the   main examination   and   thereafter   in   the   interview   also   as General category candidate without reliance being placed on the disability certificate.  The result was declared on 15.11.2016.  In the said list the marks obtained by all the candidates were disclosed.   The petitioner had obtained 136 marks and she was placed at Serial No.137.   As against   the   two   vacancies   for   the   differently   abled persons,   one   of   the   applicants   who  had   obtained   138 marks was at Serial No.57.  It is subsequent thereto the private   respondent   made   a   representation   dated 28.11.2016 with a request to consider her candidature under   the   category   for   Differently   Abled   persons   as visually impaired and to provide the appointment.   The Page 3 of 23 said   representation   being   taken   note,   the   private respondent was informed that her candidature under the category of Differently Abled persons cannot be accepted. It is in that view the private respondent claiming to be aggrieved   filed   the   writ   petition   seeking   direction   for consideration   of   her   request.     While   seeking consideration   under   the   Differently   Abled   category   the claim   is   that   the   private   respondent   is   having   80% disability as indicated in the certificate dated 05.07.2010 issued by the competent doctor. 4. The High Court while taking note of the contention, though   had   passed   an   elaborate   order   the   main consideration appears to be that though two vacancies were kept reserved for Differently Abled persons, only one vacancy is filled in by way of providing appointment to the candidate named Ms. Renu Motwani at Serial No.57. In that regard, though there is no definite material on record   the   High   Court   has   also   observed   that   in   the earlier examination for the same post held in the year 2013   the   private   respondent   herein   was   allowed   to Page 4 of 23 appear in the physically handicapped category because she was having 80% disability.  In that view, though it is not in dispute that the private respondent had indicated her category as “General” in the application, the High Court was of the view that even though a mistake was committed   by   the   candidate,   the   representation submitted   by   her   subsequently   ought   to   have   been considered   sympathetically   and   in   this   regard   it   was observed that the object of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal   Opportunities,   Protection   of   Rights   and   Full Participation) Act, 1995   (hereinafter referred to as the “PWD Act”) should have been kept in view.  In that regard the position of law relating to the consideration under the said Act was taken note and the provisions contained therein not to fill up the vacancies by any other category but   to   carry   forward   the   same   was   also   taken   into consideration.   In   that   background   the   consideration required   herein   is   as   to   whether   the   High   Court   was justified in its approach in applying the proposition of providing   opportunity   to   Differently   Abled   Persons   as provided under PWD Act, notwithstanding the fact that Page 5 of 23 the   issue   presently   related   to   the   appointment   of   the Judicial   Officer   in   the   backdrop   of     the   provisions contained   in   the   Rajasthan   Judicial   Service   Rules governing the same and the vacancy is filled up.  Further, the issue also is as to whether the direction is justified when   no   application   was   filed   seeking   benefit   of   the reserved category. 5. We   have   heard   Ms.   Meenakshi   Arora,   senior advocate for the appellants, Mr. Pallav Shishodia, senior advocate   for   the   private   respondent   and   perused   the appeal papers. 6. The Notification dated 12.03.2016 issued by the appellants   herein   inviting   online   application   in   the prescribed format for the competitive exam for the direct recruitment to Civil Judge Cadre, 2016 relating to the reservation   and   the   procedure   for   consideration   of Differently Abled Persons reads as hereunder: Page 6 of 23

“3. Regarding   the   reservation   for   disabled persons: A. According   to   Rajasthan   persons   with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights   and   Full   Participation)   Rules,   2011, aforesaid posts shown to have been reserved for disabled   persons   are   reserved   for   applicants having Locomotor Disability and Cerebral Palsy (L.D   &   C.P)   and   visual   impaired.     Aforesaid reserved posts have been reserved for applicants having under mentioned disabilities. Locomotor Disability And Cerebral Palsy (L.D. & C.P)        O.L. – One leg affected (R or L)        B.L. – Both legs affected (Mobility not to be restricted)                O.A. – One Arm affected (R or L)        Visual Impaired (Blind & Low Vision)         B – Blind (Mobility not to be restricted) Page 7 of 23                LV – Low Vision (Mobility not to be restricted)”     “5.         In   case   of   non­availability   of   fit   and suitable   candidate   for   the   posts   reserved   for women   and   disabled   candidates,   these   posts shall be filled as per the procedure and manner prescribed in Rajasthan Judicial Services Rules, 2010 (as amended). 6.     A   married   woman   candidate   in   order   to receive benefit of reserved category shall have to present   caste   certificate   (S.C./S.T./O.B.C.) issued   on   the   basis   of   the   name,   place   of residence and income of her father.”     “5.     Exam fee:           Applicant shall have to pay exam fee in accordance with his/her category. A.  Exam fee for the candidates belonging to general category, creamy layer from backward class/special   backward   class/applicants   from other States shall be Rs.250/­. B.   Examination   fee   for   the   candidates   of non­creamy   layer   from   other   backward class/special backward class shall be Rs.150/­. C.   Examination fee of Candidates belonging to scheduled caste/scheduled tribe of Rajasthan and   all   eligible   disabled   applicants   shall   be Rs.50/­.”     7. In   response   to   the   above   said   Notification   the private   respondent   submitted   her   application   and   in Column 2.4 – ‘Category’ it was indicated as “General”, in Page 8 of 23 Column 3.1 – ‘Persons with Disability’ – it was indicated as “No”.  Further in the declaration it is stated that the private   respondent   has   carefully   read   the   terms   and conditions of the Notification, instructions and relevant rules before filling up the application form online and to abide by them.  It is also declared that the informations made are true, complete and correct.  In the Column for payment   of   the   application   fee   the   sum   of   Rs.250/­ prescribed   as   the   fee   for   General   Category   Candidate along   with   the   commission   charges   of   Rs.10/­,   in   all amounting   to   Rs.260/­   is   paid.     Pursuant   to   the application   being   in   order   the   admission   card   was generated providing the Roll No.5046 and the category was indicated therein as “General”.  It is on the said basis the private respondent had appeared for the preliminary examination, main examination and the interview.  Based on the same the statement of marks of all the candidates in the order of merit was published on 15.11.2016.  It is only   thereafter   the   private   respondent   made   a representation dated 28.11.2016 wherein she claims that she is visually impaired more than 80% and the Medical Page 9 of 23 Board issued the disability certificate dated 05.07.2010. It is further indicated in the representation that she had inadvertently not mentioned the physically handicapped category in the application form.   She has also stated that  during  the   previous   year  she  had  appeared   as  a candidate under the category of Persons with Disabilities and therefore she be considered against the other vacant post. 8. The learned senior counsel for the appellants has contended that the private respondent did not make a claim   under   the   quota   for   the   category   of   Differently Abled Persons in the application and the claim presently made is merely because only one of the posts was filled up   by   a   Differently   Abled   Person   with   locomotor disability and the other post if there was a claim would have been for visually impaired and as such the private respondent is claiming visual impairment at this stage. As per the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 the unfilled seat will have to be filled up in accordance with the   normal   procedure   and,   such   vacancy   will   not   be Page 10 of 23 carried   forward   to   the   subsequent   year.     In   that circumstance, it is contended that out of the vacancies which   was   reserved   for   Differently   Abled   Persons,   the second   vacancy   which   was   available   to   a   visually impaired person has been filled in by a more meritorious candidate from the General category  in the absence of a visually   impaired   candidate,   which   is   the   normal procedure referred to in the Rules. 9. The   learned   senior   counsel   for   the   private respondent   on   the   other   hand   has   made   a   detailed reference to the provisions of the PWD Act, 1995, more particularly to the definitions as contained in Sections 2 (b) to (e), (o), (p), (t) as also to Sections 18 to 32, 33 and 36 as contained therein. 10. However,   we   do   not   find   it   necessary   to   advert more in detail to the said provisions since in the instant case it is not as if no reservation for Differently Abled Persons   was   made   in   the   Recruitment   Notification concerned   nor   is   it   a   case   where   the   Recruitment Notification   is   under   challenge   on   the   ground   of   not Page 11 of 23 providing reservation.  Further the decisions relied upon by the learned senior counsel for the private respondent in the case of  Government of India through Secretary & Anr. vs. Rani Prakash Gupta   (2010) 7 SCC 626; in the   case   of   Union   of   India   &   Anr.   vs.   National Federation of the Blind  (2013) 10 SCC 772   and in the case of  Rajeev Kumar Gupta & Ors. vs. Union of India   (2016)  13   SCC   153,   wherein     this   Court  has &  Ors. addressed the issues relating to backlog  of vacancies, the employer having not identified the post, the duty cast on the Government and the statutory bodies as per cadre strength and the number of posts to be reserved, would not be of assistance since the very writ petition in the instant case before the High Court was not predicated on the basis that the Notification issued in the year 2016 did not   make   enough   provisions   for   Differently   Abled Persons.  Further though the learned senior counsel for the   private   respondent   has   contended   before   us   that enough   representation   was   not   given   from   the   earlier years and the unfilled vacancies of the earlier year were Page 12 of 23 also required to be carried forward, the same was also not the contention before the High Court nor has the private respondent herein challenged the said Notification dated 12.03.2016 on those grounds by offering herself as a   candidate   under   the   Category   of   Differently   Abled Persons. 11. However, one aspect of the matter which is to be taken note is with regard to the contention of the learned senior   counsel   for   the   private   respondent   that   the mandamus issued by the High Court is sustainable since the vacancy could not have been filled up by any other category but ought to have been carried forward and in that circumstance if the provision as contained in Section 36   of   PWD   Act   is   kept   in   view,     the   action   of   the appellants   herein   in   operating   Rule   10(4)   of   the Rajasthan   Judicial   Service   Rules,   2010   would   not   be sustainable.   It is,   therefore, contended by the learned senior counsel for the private respondent that in such circumstance   in   any   event   one   post   reserved   for   the Differently Abled person in the selection for the year 2016 Page 13 of 23 should have been kept vacant to be carried forward to the next   recruitment   for   want   of   candidate   and   in   that background keeping in view Section 36 of the PWD Act, instead of carrying forward to the next recruitment the same   being   ordered   to   be   filled   up   by   an   available Differently Abled person is justified. 12.     In order to appreciate this aspect of the matter it would   be   necessary   to   take   note   of   the   provision   as contained   in   Section  36   of   the   PWD  Act,   1995   which reads as hereunder: “Vacancies not filled up to be carried forward –   Wherein   any   recruitment   year   any   vacancy under section 33 cannot be filled up due to non­ availability of a suitable person with disability or, for any other sufficient reason, such vacancy shall   be   carried   forward   in   the   succeeding recruitment   year   and   if   in   the   succeeding recruitment   year   also   suitable   person   with disability is not available, it may first be filled by interchange   among   the   three   categories   and only   when   there   is   no   person   with   disability available for the post in that year, the employer shall fill up the vacancy by appointment of a person, other than a person with disability. Provided that if the nature of vacancies in an establishment is such that a given category of person cannot be employed, the vacancies may be   interchanged   among   the   three   categories Page 14 of 23 with   the   prior   approval   of   the   appropriate Government.” 13. In that backdrop what is to be taken note is also the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 framed under the Notification dated 18.01.2010 which is in exercise of the power conferred by Article 233 and 234 read with proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Notification reads as hereunder;                “ DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL                 (A­Gr.2)   NOTIFICATION Jaipur, January 18, 2010 G.S.R.81 .­ In exercise of the powers conferred by Article 233 and 234 read with proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India and all other powers enabling him   in   this   behalf,   the   Governor   of   Rajasthan   in consultation   with   the   Rajasthan   Public   Service Commission   and   the   High   Court   of   Judicature   for Rajasthan hereby makes the following rules regulating recruitment to the posts in, and the conditions and other matters related to the service of persons appointed to the Rajasthan Judicial Service, namely:­ ”   In the said Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, Rule 10(4) reads as hereunder:         “(1)   x x x x x x Page 15 of 23 (2)   x x x x x x (3)   x x x x x x  (4)     Reservation   of   posts   for   Persons   with Disabilities   as   defined   in   the   Rajasthan Employment   of   Disabled   Persons   Rules,   2000, shall be 3% category­wise which shall be horizontal and shall be available only at the time of initial recruitment.     In   the   event   of   non­availability   of eligible and suitable persons with disabilities in a particular year, the vacancy so reserved for them shall   be   filled   in   accordance   with   the   normal procedure and such vacancies shall not be carried forward to the subsequent year. Provided that the total number of posts reserved for all such categories in a direct recruitment shall not exceed 50% of the total vacancies.” 14. The Rule therefore framed is under the provisions of the Constitution of India which relates to the selection of the Judicial Officers, for which the yardsticks could be laid down in the Rules.  On this aspect of the matter the decision relied on by the learned senior counsel for the appellants in the case of  V. Surendra Mohan vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors .   (2019) 4 SCC 237 would be apposite.  In the said case, this Court in a matter relating to   the   selection   for   the   post   of   Civil   Judge   (Junior Division)   to   the   Tamil   Nadu   Judicial   Service   was Page 16 of 23 confronted with a situation whereunder the Notification prescribed the percentage of disability at 40 to 50 % for partially   blind   and   partially   deaf   for   selection.     The candidate   who   had   assailed   the   action   possessed   the disability certificate mentioning the disability at 70 %. Since   under   Section   33   of   the   PWD   Act,   1995   no restriction on disability to the extent of 40 to 50 % can be put, the restriction on disability as per the Notification was   assailed   before   the   Madras   High   Court   which culminated   in   the   appeal   before   this   Court.     In   that context   while   considering   the   matter,   this   Court   had adverted to the issue as to whether the restriction on disability is in breach of the provisions of the PWD Act, 1995   and   is   it   to   be   set   aside.     In   that   context,   the validity of the Tamil Nadu State Judicial Service (Cadre and Recruitment) Rules, 2007 vis­a­vis the provisions of the PWD Act, 1995 was examined and the power under which the Rules 2007 (which is akin to the Rajasthan Rules,   2010)   being   framed,     as   empowered   under   the provisions   of   the   Constitution   was   taken   note   with reference to the earlier judgments of this Court.  Though Page 17 of 23 the said decision is not in relation to Section 36 of the PWD Act, 1995, prima facie when it is noticed that Rule 10(4) is contained in the Rules, 2010 framed in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 233 and 234 read with proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the   Rule   being   operated   will   be   justified.     As   already noted, neither the notification nor the Rule were under challenge.  In terms thereof the appellants on taking note that there is no other application/applicant seeking the appointment under the category reserved for Differently Abled   Persons   has   filled   up   by   selecting   the   next meritorious candidate from the other category.  Hence in a circumstance where no challenge is laid to the Rule the action to that extent would be justified. 15. That apart, though it is contended by the private respondent   that   it   was   a   mistake   in   indicating   “No” against the Column 3.1 – ‘Person with Disability’, what is necessary to be taken note is that against Column 2.4 – ‘Category’, it has been stated as “General”.   That apart the   examination   fee   fixed   for   General   candidates   is Page 18 of 23 Rs.250/­  while   for  the   eligible  disabled  applicant  it  is fixed at Rs.50/­.   The private respondent in addition to indicating her category as ‘General’ has paid the fee of Rs.250/­ as applicable.   Further, though the disability certificate   dated   05.07.2010   is   presently   relied   upon, there   is   no   material   to   indicate   that   the   same   was enclosed along with the application or produced till the completion of interview.  On this aspect, to contend that the private respondent cannot make a contrary claim, the learned   senior   counsel   for   the   appellants   herein   has relied on the decision in the case of  J&K Public Service Commission   vs.   Israr   Ahmad   (2005)   12   SCC   498 wherein it is held in para 5 as hereunder:  We have considered the rival contentions    5. advanced by both the parties. The contention of the first respondent cannot be accepted as he has not applied for selection as a candidate entitled to get reservation. He did not produce any certificate along with his application. The fact that he has not availed of the benefit for the preliminary examination itself is sufficient to treat him as a candidate not entitled to get reservation.   He   passed   the   preliminary examination as a general candidate and at the subsequent stage of the main examination he cannot avail of reservation on the ground that Page 19 of 23 he   was   successful   in   getting   the   required certificate only at a later stage. The nature and status of the candidate who was applying for the selection could only be treated alike and once   a   candidate   has   chosen   to   opt   for   the category to which he is entitled, he cannot later change the status and make fresh claim. The Division Bench was not correct in holding that as   a   candidate   he   had   also   had   the qualification   and   the   production   of   the certificate   at   a   later   stage   would   make   him entitled to seek reservation. Therefore, we set aside the judgment of the Division Bench and allow the appeal. No costs. 16. Further   the   decision   in   the   case   of   Registrars General, Calcutta High Court vs. Shriniwas Prasad Shah & Ors . (2013) 12 SCC 364 is relied on, wherein this Court has disallowed the claim in a case where in the application the category of reservation was indicated but certificate was not produced and the fee applicable to general candidate was paid.     In addition, the learned senior counsel for the appellants herein also refers to the inherent   contradictions   in   the   claim   of   the   private respondent   apart   from   the   fact   that   the   claim   for consideration under the category reserved for Differently Abled Persons is not made.   Page 20 of 23 17. In that regard it is pointed out that even as per the disability certificate dated 05.07.2010 sought to be relied on at present, the description of permanent disability is shown as Hemiplegia – Non­functional hand.  It is in that background pointed out that though that is the nature of disability   indicated   therein   which   will   be   locomotor disability, in the representation dated 28.11.2016 which was made belatedly the private respondent has claimed that she is visually impaired, more than 80% and the reference made is to the same disability certificate dated 05.07.2010.   The learned senior counsel for the private respondent no doubt has referred to an article relating to Hemiplegia   wherein   reference   is   also   made   to   the difficulties in seeing.  The  very nature of the contention would indicate that in the instant facts the claim in the application under the category should have been made and the disability certificate was required to be produced along   with   the   application   since   the   nature   of   the disability was a matter which was to be considered by the recruiting authorities concerned, if need be on medical examination.   If visual impairment as a consequence of Page 21 of 23 Hemiplegia   was   to   be   considered,   the   percentage   of disability by visual impairment will also be relevant and the   same   was   required   to   be   determined   at   the appropriate stage. 18. Therefore,   in  a  circumstance  where   the  issue   is whether the disability claimed is locomotor disability or visual impairment and the same  itself being a question to be debated, it would not be possible for the Court to act as an expert and in such circumstance a mandamus to consider the same in a particular manner would not also be justified.  It is no doubt true that the employment opportunities   to  the   differently   abled   persons   is   to   be provided as a matter of right when a case is made out and   there   is   no   need   for   sympathetic   consideration. However, in the instant facts when the claim was not made and there are debateable issues, though we could empathise with the cause of the private respondent the nature of direction issued by the High Court in any event cannot be considered as justified.  This is more so,  in a circumstance where the appellants had acted in terms of Page 22 of 23 the   Rajasthan   Judicial   Service   Rules,   2010   when   no other claim was available and had appointed a candidate from the other category and when such appointment has been made, disturbing such candidate at this juncture also will not be justified.   Hence for all the afore stated reasons, we find the order dated 04.05.2017 passed by the   High   Court   to   be   unsustainable   and   the   same   is accordingly set aside. 19. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed with no order as to costs.   All pending applications stand disposed of. ……………………….J. (R. BANUMATHI) ……………………….J.                                               (A.S. BOPANNA) New Delhi, August 29, 2019 Page 23 of 23