No Separate Disability Cut-Off in Judicial Prelims: Raj HC

No Separate Preliminary Cut-Off for Candidates With Benchmark Disabilities Under Horizontal Reservation: Rajasthan High Court

Published: 18 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

The Rajasthan High Court dismissed a writ petition by a Civil Judge Cadre candidate with a benchmark disability who wanted a separate cut-off for such candidates in the preliminary examination result of 11.01.2022. Following Indra Sawhney, the Division Bench held that this reservation is horizontal, so selected candidates are placed in their own category (paras 12, 14). The 2010 Rules provide no separate cut-off, the preliminary examination only shortlists, and Vikram Singh Chauhan had settled the issue (paras 15-16).

Key holdings

Disability reservation is horizontal under Article 16(1); those selected are placed in their own category (paras 12, 14).

The Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010 contain no provision for a separate preliminary cut-off for persons with benchmark disabilities (para 15).

The preliminary examination only shortlists candidates; its marks do not count towards final merit (paras 11, 15).

Vikram Singh Chauhan (Division Bench, 16.05.2014) settled the issue and was applied with full force (paras 13, 16).

A result declared as per the Rules and the advertisement is not open to interference in judicial review (para 15).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The High Court advertised Civil Judge Cadre posts on 22.07.2021: 89 for 2020 (four reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities) and 31 for 2021 (one reserved). The advertisement made this reservation horizontal, integrating those selected in their own category (para 2). Clause 15, mirroring Rule 20, admits fifteen times the category-wise vacancies to the main examination; preliminary marks do not count in final merit (paras 3, 11-12). The petitioner, an OBC non-creamy layer candidate with a benchmark disability, sat the examination on 28.11.2021. The result of 11.01.2022 gave cut-offs for every advertised category except candidates with benchmark disabilities (para 4). He sought a separate cut-off and revised result, invoking the separate vacancies and Articles 14 and 16 (paras 1, 5-6).

Court's Findings

Under the Rajasthan Judicial Service Rules, 2010, which governed the recruitment, Rule 10(4) leaves reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities to the State's rules, and Rule 20 provides a two-stage examination in which preliminary marks do not count towards final merit; clause 15 of the advertisement reproduces it (paras 10-12). Relying on the Constitution Bench in Indra Sawhney, the Bench explained that reservation for the physically disabled is horizontal, under Article 16(1), and cuts across the vertical reservations under Article 16(4): a candidate selected in that quota is placed in his own category, SC or open, by necessary adjustment (paras 12, 14). The issue was already settled by a Division Bench on 16.05.2014 in Vikram Singh Chauhan. That decision, applying Indra Sawhney and earlier Division Bench rulings, found no ground to intervene, rejected the argument based on cut-offs declared for women, and held that Chattar Singh did not help (para 13). The Rules contain no provision for a cut-off for persons with benchmark disabilities, the preliminary examination is only a shortlisting process, and the result followed the Rules and the horizontal scheme, so judicial review could not intervene (para 15). Vikram Singh Chauhan applied with full force (para 16).

Legal Principle

Reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities is horizontal: candidates selected against it are adjusted within their own vertical or open category. Where the recruitment rules provide no separate cut-off for them, a preliminary examination that only shortlists candidates need not declare one, and the court will not intervene in judicial review (paras 14-16).

Precedents Relied Upon

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India & Ors. 1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 215
Relied Upon Discussed at ¶ 12, 14
Constitution Bench: reservation for the physically handicapped is horizontal under Article 16(1) and cuts across the vertical reservations under Article 16(4); those selected are placed in their own category by necessary adjustment.
Vikram Singh Chauhan v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Rajasthan High Court (D.B.), decided 16.05.2014
Followed Discussed at ¶ 13, 16
Applying Indra Sawhney, physically handicapped candidates are assimilated in their own categories and need no separate category or cut-off at the shortlisting stage; held to settle the issue and applied with full force.
Himanshu Kachhawaha v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 445/2004, decided 16.08.2011
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 8
Cited by counsel for the respondents: preliminary results are declared as the rules prescribe, and with horizontal reservation for the specially-abled there is no separate category needing its own cut-off.

View all precedents (4)

Bhuvnashwar Singh v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr. D.B. Civil Special Appeal No. 881/2002, decided 16.08.2011
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 8
Cited by counsel for the respondents: preliminary results are declared as the rules prescribe, and with horizontal reservation for the specially-abled there is no separate category needing its own cut-off.

Statutory Provisions