Today, On 15th April, The Supreme Court of India directed the Rajasthan High Court to appoint Rekha Sharma, a visually impaired woman, as a Civil Judge (Junior Division). Citing Article 142, the Court emphasized that the provision ensures full justice in cases where unique circumstances exist.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India instructed the Rajasthan High Court to appoint Rekha Sharma, a visually impaired woman, as a civil judge (junior division) in the state.
This decision, made by Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma, utilized the extraordinary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, allowing for either Sharma’s direct appointment or the creation of a supernumerary seat for her.
While delivering the verdict, Justice B.V. Nagarathna invoked the constitutional power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to ensure complete justice. She stated:
“According to Article 142, we instruct the Rajasthan High Court to either offer the petitioner any available position or create an extra post for her as a Civil Judge Junior Division. This is because she scored above the minimum marks, belongs to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS), and has a low vision disability. We also direct the High Court to appoint her to this position. This order is based on the unique facts of this case. The appointment warrant should be issued when others’ warrants are issued. This is the purpose of Article 142: to ensure full justice in a case.”
Rekha Sharma, who comes from the economically weaker section of the general category, encountered barriers despite achieving scores above the minimum required for visually impaired candidates.
The woman, who is 100% visually impaired, successfully cleared the Rajasthan Judicial Services Competitive Examination 2019. However, her name was not included in the final selection list. She filed a writ petition in the Rajasthan High Court, which was dismissed. She then approached the Supreme Court of India seeking justice.
Advocate Talha Abdul Rahman, who represented Sharma, pointed out that out of the nine posts reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities (PwBDs), only two were filled, thereby leaving opportunities for Sharma’s appointment.
The case highlighted inconsistencies in the allocation of reserved seats for PwBDs, with claims that positions meant for candidates with disabilities had been improperly assigned to individuals who could have been accommodated under other reserved categories.
The Supreme Court’s intervention not only addressed Sharma’s immediate needs but also established a precedent for similar cases, highlighting the judiciary’s commitment to fairness and inclusivity in employment practices.
Article 142 is a constitutional provision that enables the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to do “complete justice” in any case before it. A supernumerary seat refers to an additional position created beyond the sanctioned posts, often used to ensure continuity of employment or to address unique circumstances.
Legal Provisions Involved
1. Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
The case primarily revolved around Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, 2016, which mandates that at least 4% of all government vacancies must be reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities, including blindness and low vision.
Section 34(1): “Every appropriate Government shall appoint in every government establishment not less than four percent of the total number of vacancies in the cadre strength in each group of posts…”
Also, Section 3(3) of the RPWD Act, 2016 states:
“No person with disability shall be discriminated on the ground of disability unless it is shown that the impugned act or omission is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.”
Also Read: Supreme Court To Young Couples: “Failure of Marriage Isn’t the End of Life”
2. Constitution of India
The Supreme Court also relied upon Article 14 (Right to Equality), Article 16 (Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment), and Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty).
Article 16(1): “There shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.”
The Court emphasized that any form of discrimination against a person solely on the basis of disability violates their constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court’s direction to appoint a visually impaired woman as a Civil Judge in Rajasthan marks a big step towards inclusive justice. It upholds the spirit of the Constitution and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, reinforcing that disability should never be a barrier to equal opportunity and dignity.