Challenge to Civil Services Examination Rules 2024 on Attempts for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD)

The Bombay High Court dismissed the petition, holding that: The classification between SC/ST and OBC PwBD candidates is not arbitrary and is based on reasonable grounds. SC/ST candidates are a distinct class under the Constitution and are entitled to unlimited attempts, while OBC candidates are entitled to 9 attempts. The reservation for PwBD is a horizontal reservation, which cuts across vertical reservations (SC/ST/OBC/General). Therefore, the number of attempts for PwBD candidates depends on their vertical category. The court upheld the policy decision of the government, stating that as long as the policy is not arbitrary or violative of fundamental rights, the court should not interfere.

Horizontal vs. Vertical Reservation: The court reiterated that reservation for PwBD is a horizontal reservation, which operates across vertical reservations (SC/ST/OBC/General). Therefore, the benefits available to PwBD candidates depend on their vertical category.

Distinct Classes under the Constitution: SC/ST candidates are a distinct class under the Constitution and are entitled to different benefits compared to OBC candidates. The court held that the classification between SC/ST and OBC PwBD candidates is not arbitrary and is based on reasonable grounds.

Policy Decision: The court emphasized that the number of attempts for the Civil Services Examination is a policy decision, and the court should not interfere unless the policy is arbitrary or violates fundamental rights.

Court’s analysis of horizontal and vertical reservations. (Para 13-21) Court’s decision and ratio. (Para 22-30)

Major Acts:

1. Constitution of India (COI) – Articles 14, 15, 16, 341, 342

2. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 – Sections 33, 34

3. Civil Services Examination Rules, 2024 – Rule 3, Rule 5

Subjects:
Horizontal Reservation – Vertical Reservation – Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) – Civil Services Examination – Unlimited Attempts – OBC – SC/ST – Discrimination – Age Relaxation – Policy Decision

Facts:

1. Nature of the Litigation: Writ Petition challenging Rule 3 of the Civil Services Examination Rules 2024, which restricts the number of attempts for OBC candidates with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) to 9, while allowing unlimited attempts for SC/ST candidates with PwBD.

2. Petitioner: Dharmendra Kumar, a 38-year-old OBC candidate with 57% Multiple Disability, seeking unlimited attempts for the Civil Services Examination.

3. Respondents: Union of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel & Training, and Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).

4. Reason for Filing: The petitioner, having exhausted 9 attempts, challenged the rule as discriminatory, arguing that PwBD candidates should be treated equally regardless of their vertical category (OBC/SC/ST).

5. Previous Decisions: The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in All India Confederation of Blind vs. Union of India and the Delhi High Court’s decision in Amnol Bhandari vs. Delhi Technological University, which emphasized equal treatment for PwBD candidates.

Issues:

1. Whether Rule 3 of the Civil Services Examination Rules 2024, which limits OBC PwBD candidates to 9 attempts while allowing unlimited attempts for SC/ST PwBD candidates, violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India (COI)?

2. Whether the classification between SC/ST and OBC PwBD candidates in terms of the number of attempts is arbitrary and discriminatory?

Submissions/Arguments:

1. Petitioner’s Arguments:

   • The petitioner argued that PwBD candidates should be treated as a single class, and the differentiation between SC/ST and OBC PwBD candidates is discriminatory.

   • Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decision in All India Confederation of Blind vs. Union of India, which recognized horizontal reservation for PwBD across all vertical categories (SC/ST/OBC/General).

   • The petitioner contended that the Delhi High Court in Amnol Bhandari vs. Delhi Technological University held that PwBD candidates are socially backward and should receive the same benefits as SC/ST candidates.

   • The petitioner also cited the Office Memorandum dated 15/01/2018, which mandates equal relaxation standards for all PwBD candidates, irrespective of their vertical category.

2. Respondents’ Arguments:

   • The respondents argued that the classification between SC/ST and OBC PwBD candidates is based on reasonable grounds and is not arbitrary.

   • They contended that SC/ST candidates are a distinct class under the Constitution and are entitled to unlimited attempts, while OBC candidates are entitled to 9 attempts.

   • The respondents emphasized that the Civil Services Examination Rules 2024 are a policy decision, and the court should not interfere unless the policy is arbitrary or violates fundamental rights.

   • They also raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner should have approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) before filing the writ petition.