The Vacation Bench of Apex Court Yesterday (May 21st), permitted 31 candidates with different disabilities to participate in the interview for the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Examination, provided they have attained at least 45% marks in the Mains Examination.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court allowed 31 candidates with various disabilities to appear for the interview of the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services Examination, provided they have secured a minimum of 45 percent marks in the Mains Examination.
This interim relief was granted by a vacation bench of Justices PS Narasimha and Sanjay Karol in a suo motu matter concerning the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services (Recruitment and Service Conditions) Rules, which exclude visually impaired and low vision candidates from appointment in the State judicial service.
The Court was informed that the 31 candidates, who have different disabilities not limited to visual impairment, had taken the Mains Examination but were not called for the interview due to either ineligibility or failure to secure the minimum required marks.
The Court emphasized that the candidates must meet the minimum marks requirement and ordered that those who have secured 45 percent marks, which is the minimum for reserved category candidates, be allowed to sit for the interview.
“In order to take in for interview, they have to fulfill the criteria or minimum marks. We say that if either of the 31 candidates have secured minimum marks like the reserved candidates (referring to SC/ST which is 45% marks), they are allowed to appear for the interview subject to the outcome of this petition,”
-the Court ordered.
The Supreme Court had earlier taken suo motu cognizance of a letter addressed to the Chief Justice of India by the mother of a visually impaired candidate aspiring to be a judicial officer in Madhya Pradesh. On March 21, the Court allowed visually impaired candidates to appear for the Mains Examination scheduled for March 31.
During the hearing, Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal, serving as amicus curiae, informed the Court that none of the 31 candidates had secured the minimum qualifying marks to be eligible for the interview. However, Agrawal highlighted the lack of a separate cut-off for candidates with disabilities, unlike other reserved categories that have lower cut-offs for the interview stage.
“There has to be something, otherwise it would be a discrimination. It would be unreasonable then,”
-the amicus argued.
The Court then questioned the counsel representing the High Court about any possible relaxation for such candidates.
“In these cases, is there a requirement for separate reservation for such disabled candidates including visually-impaired? There is a quota for woman candidates with regard to relaxation of marks. Can’t there be for them (candidates with disability)?”
-Justice Narasimha asked.
Advocate Arjun Garg, representing the High Court, responded that candidates who did not meet the minimum cut-off marks might also be failing to meet other eligibility criteria. He pointed out that candidates are required to have either 70% marks in law graduation or three years of practice. When the rule was challenged, many candidates were allowed to appear for the examination on an interim basis.
Garg added that since the rule prescribing at least three years of practice or 70 percent marks in law graduation has now been upheld by the courts, including the Supreme Court, it applies to all candidates.
Considering the submissions, the Court noted that the issue of reservation for visually impaired candidates would need to be extensively heard to establish the law. In the interim, it ruled that candidates with at least 45 percent marks in the Mains Examination can sit for the interview.
The Court clarified that its directions are subject to the final outcome of the present case.
“We are taking March 21 order of ours to a logical end. If now we don’t do anything then that order would be baseless. We had said that we allow them to appear for mains examination and now we don’t do anything then everything would be of no value. We are trying to be logical. We are just in interim manner allowing them to come for interview. Don’t worry. It is all interim. We are thinking what to do. We will hear you,”
-Justice Narasimha assured the counsel representing the High Court.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Judicial Services
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
