Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Dharmendra Kumar, a person with 57% multiple disability (locomotor and low vision), challenged Rule 3 of the Civil Services Examination Rules 2024, which restricts the number of attempts for Persons with Benchmark Disability (PwBD) candidates belonging to General/EWS/OBC categories to 9 attempts, while granting unlimited attempts to SC/ST PwBD candidates. The petitioner, who belongs to the OBC category and has already taken 9 attempts, argued that this classification is discriminatory and arbitrary, violating Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution. He relied on the decision in All India Confederation of the Blind v. Union of India, which recognized reservation for disabled as horizontal reservation, and contended that all PwBD candidates should be treated equally regardless of their vertical category. The respondents, Union of India and UPSC, defended the rule, stating that the classification is reasonable and based on the need to provide compensatory benefits to historically disadvantaged groups like SC/ST. They argued that treating all PwBD candidates alike would treat unequals as equals. The court, after hearing arguments, held that the classification between SC/ST and other categories is reasonable and has a rational nexus with the object of uplifting historically disadvantaged communities. The court noted that PwBD is a horizontal reservation, but the vertical categories (SC, ST, OBC, General) are distinct, and the benefits available to SC/ST candidates are not required to be extended to others. The court also observed that the petitioner had not challenged the rule earlier despite being aware of it. Consequently, the court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the validity of Rule 3.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 14 - Reasonable Classification - Horizontal Reservation - The classification between SC/ST PwBD candidates (unlimited attempts) and GL/EWS/OBC PwBD candidates (9 attempts) is based on a reasonable nexus with the object of providing compensatory benefits to historically disadvantaged groups. The court held that PwBD is a horizontal reservation cutting across vertical categories, but the vertical categories themselves are distinct and the benefits available to SC/ST candidates are not required to be extended to OBC/General candidates. (Paras 1-10) B) Service Law - Civil Services Examination - Number of Attempts - Rule 3 of Civil Services Examination Rules 2024 - The restriction of 9 attempts for GL/EWS/OBC PwBD candidates is not arbitrary as it applies uniformly within each category. The court held that the petitioner, being an OBC PwBD candidate, is not entitled to unlimited attempts merely because SC/ST PwBD candidates receive that benefit. (Paras 3-8) C) Disability Law - Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 - Section 34 - Reservation - The Act provides for reservation in vacancies for persons with benchmark disabilities, but does not mandate uniform treatment across all vertical categories in matters of age relaxation or number of attempts. The court held that the Office Memorandum dated 15/01/2018 regarding relaxed standards does not override the specific rules framed for the Civil Services Examination. (Paras 9-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether Rule 3 of the Civil Services Examination Rules 2024, which restricts the number of attempts for Persons with Benchmark Disability (PwBD) candidates belonging to General/EWS/OBC categories to 9 attempts while granting unlimited attempts to SC/ST PwBD candidates, is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. Rule 3 of the Civil Services Examination Rules 2024 is upheld as valid and not discriminatory. The petitioner is not entitled to unlimited attempts.
Law Points
- Horizontal reservation
- vertical reservation
- reasonable classification
- Article 14
- Article 16
- Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016
- Section 34
- Civil Services Examination Rules 2024
- Rule 3
- Rule 5
- number of attempts
- age relaxation
- discrimination
- persons with benchmark disability
