The Rajasthan High Court has adjudicated a crucial matter concerning whether differently-abled candidates must meet the same benchmark qualifying marks as other candidates in recruitment processes. The court held that when a recruitment scheme prescribes minimum qualifying marks or standardised criteria, those benchmarks must apply uniformly—subject to any relaxation explicitly permitted by law—to all eligible candidates, including those with disabilities.
In the case before the court, a candidate belonging to the category of persons with disabilities, who had participated in a recruitment process, challenged the non‐award of selection despite securing marks above the reserved category threshold. The petitioner argued that the disability quota entailed a lighter qualifying standard and that applying the general minimum cutoff would defeat substantive equality. The respondents, in turn, defended the requirement of a standard qualifying mark on the ground of maintaining selection integrity and ensuring that candidates appointed were suitably competent for the posts.
The bench examined the relevant recruitment regulation and noted that it included both horizontal reservation for persons with disabilities and a requirement that all candidates achieve a specified minimum aggregate or paper-wise score to be considered for merit list. The court emphasised that reservation cannot be a licence to dispense with essential fitness or competence for office; therefore, a cut-off mark policy is a legitimate regulatory tool for maintaining recruitment standards. At the same time, the court underscored that any relaxation of the qualifying marks must be explicitly provided for in the rules or notification, and cannot be implied.
In its ruling, the High Court stated that persons with disabilities are entitled to equal opportunity and that administrative authorities must implement quotas honestly and proactively. However, it added that in so doing, the authorities may prescribe minimum thresholds to ensure that appointments are not made in a casual manner. The court clarified that such thresholds are not discriminatory if they apply uniformly and are justified on objective grounds, such as job-fitness. The court also noted that if any recruitment notification or rules provide for different qualifying marks or special relaxations specifically for persons with disabilities, that must be followed—but in the absence of such provision, disabled candidates must meet the standard qualifying criteria.
Having found that the notification in the instant case did not exempt the benchmark cut-offs for disabled quota candidates, the High Court dismissed the petition. It held that the candidate’s claim to exemption from the qualifying mark requirement lacked statutory support; consequently, the non-selection could not be held to violate the candidate’s rights under Articles 14, 15 or 16 of the Constitution. The court's decision reaffirms the principle that while affirmative action accommodates disadvantaged groups, it does not render them eligible for appointments without meeting foundational eligibility criteria—unless the law permits.
This ruling carries important implications for recruitment practices across Rajasthan and emphasises that authorities must balance the twin goals of affirmative action and maintenance of competence standards. Authorities must ensure that any differential treatment for disabled candidates is clearly provided in rules or notifications; otherwise they must apply the same qualifying norms to all.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.