- (1.) This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Prashant Kumar Sharma, who is a differently abled person having disability of 52%, praying for a direction to the respondent to show him cut off marks for the category of differently abled and also that if no eligible candidate is available then N/A should be shown in that category. Pursuant to advertisement dated 15.11.2018, the petitioner applied for direct recruitment for the post of Civil Judge in Rajasthan Judicial Service in differently abled category and was therefore kept under the category Male General (Differently Abled). Out of total 197 advertised vacancies, apart from other categories, two posts were reserved for hearing impairment. He appeared in the examination with Roll No.43534 held on 31.03.2019. In the result of the said examination declared on 20.05.2019, the cut off marks for the category to which the petitioner falls, was not declared. It is submitted that all the agencies which conduct examination, declare separately the cut off marks for the differently abled category and also that if no person or candidate qualifies the qualifying cut off for the said category then N/A is specifically mention in the cut off marks for the said category.
(2.) Mr. A.K. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, submits that similar question came for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur, in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9338/2019 - Mohammad Hiddatula Sherani Vs. Rajasthan High Court Jodhpur, and this Court disposed of the same by order dated 08.07.2019. Learned counsel for the both the parties submit that similar order may be passed in this case also. We would like to quote the order dated 08.07.2019, which reads thus:- "The grievance urged by the petitioner in this proceeding is that in the ongoing recruitment for the Rajasthan Judicial Service, a separate merit list has not been prepared. At the stage of deciding the number of qualified candidates who appear in the preliminary examination and who should be permitted to proceed further in the main examination, the Rules, particularly Rule 20(2) of the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 provides that the number of candidates to be admitted to the main examination would be 15 times of the total number of vacancies (categorywise). Relying upon this provision it is argued that in absence of this arrangement, with respect to the disabled candidates amounts to discrimination and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the High Court Establishment appearing on advancement has relied upon a Division Bench ruling of this Court in Vikram Singh Chouhan vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. [D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3115/2014, decided on 16.05.2014] which noticed the distinction between the constitutionally permissible reservations under Article 16(4) - such as those in favour of SC/ST/OBC/MBC on one hand what is termed a horizontal reservation or set apart Article 16(1) such a gender based reservation and those for disabled persons with disability etc. The Division Bench in Vikram Singh Chouhan's case (supra) noticed the judgment in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India and Ors . [(1992) Suppl. 3 SCC 215] and also noticed the judgment in Himanshu Kachhwaha vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Anr. [D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.445/2004, decided on 16.08.2011] and held as follows:- "In the face of the consistent and determinative judicial pronouncements referred to hereinabove and more importantly founded on the decisive enunciation in Indra Sawhney (supra) bearing on the present debate, we are of the unhesitant opinion that no intervention in the exercise of the power of judicial review is warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. The plea that cut-off marks for women candidates, who similarly are to avail horizontal reservation, have been declared and that omission to do so vis-a-vis the physically handicapped candidates is in apparent violation of the Rules besides being constitutionally impermissible, does not weigh with us, in view of the emphatic and unequivocal exposition in Indra Sawhney (supra) distinguishing vertical and horizontal reservations in the context of the constitutional scheme therefor as enshrined in Article 16 of the Constitution and the consequential adjustments of those availing horizontal reservations in the respective categories i.e. General/SC/ST/OBC. We find no discernible reason whatsoever to sustain the challenge as laid in the instant petition. The writ petition lacks in merit and is dismissed." In view of the above clear position, this Court is unable to accept the petitioner's claim for issuing admit card to 15 times the number of vacancies reserved for the persons with disabilities who have been held successful in the preliminary examination to fill the posts in the Rajasthan Judicial Service. The rights of those individuals will be decided in accordance with the judgment in the case of Vikram Singh Chauhan (supra); in other words depending upon the results in the final examination and the working out of 3% horizontal reservation (category-wise), if any post is vacant, three times of that number would be called for interview. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of."
(3.) In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of. The directions contained in the order dated 08.07.2019 shall mutatis mutandis apply to the present case. This also disposes of the stay application.;