Horizontal reservation for PwBD does not require separate merit lists or cut-offs at shortlisting stages.

The petitioner, a person with 70% permanent disability (Blind and Low Vision), applied for the post of Junior Judicial Assistant/Clerk Grade-II under the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) category pursuant to an advertisement dated 05.08.2022.

Although the petitioner secured 139.2503 normalized marks, exceeding the 40% minimum qualifying threshold, he was not shortlisted for the Computer Test because his marks were significantly lower than the General category cut-off of 196.3451.

The petitioner challenged the recruitment process, alleging that the respondents failed to properly implement horizontal reservation under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, and failed to declare a separate cut-off for the PwBD category at the shortlisting stage.

1. Whether the recruiting authority is departs from statutory mandates by not declaring a separate cut-off for PwBD candidates at the written examination stage in a horizontal reservation scheme.

2. Whether a candidate, after unsuccessfully participating in the selection process, can challenge the methodology of shortlisting and advertisement terms.

3. Whether the writ petition is maintainable despite significant delay and the conclusion of the recruitment process.

The Court primarily applied Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which mandates reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities.

It relied on the principle that horizontal reservation operates across vertical categories and does not require a separate merit list at the preliminary stage, as established in *Rohitash Kumar Jat v. Rajasthan High Court*.

Furthermore, the Court followed the doctrine of estoppel by conduct laid down in *Rekha Sharma v. Rajasthan High Court*, which prevents unsuccessful candidates from challenging the selection methodology post-facto.

The Court reasoned that since the petitioner’s marks (139.2503) were substantially below the shortlisting range (196.3451), his challenge was largely academic as no "upward movement" or interpretation of reservation would place him within the zone of selection.

The Court noted that horizontal reservation is adjusted within respective vertical categories; thus, the non-declaration of a separate PwBD cut-off at the written exam stage does not constitute an illegality.

Critically, the petitioner failed to show that any PwBD candidate with lower marks than him was selected, meaning no actual prejudice was proven.

Finally, the Court observed that the recruitment process had attained finality over a year prior, and entertaining a belated challenge would unfairly unsettle the rights of appointed third parties.

It ruled that the petitioner, having participated without protest and failed on merit, could not challenge the methodology.

The Court affirmed that separate cut-offs for horizontal reservation at the shortlisting stage are not mandatory.

All pending applications were disposed of, and the results were ordered to be returned to the concerned authority in a sealed cover.