Introduction:
In the case of Dharmendra Kumar vs Union of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, Department of Personnel & Ors (Writ Petition No.1834 of 2024), the Bombay High Court examined a petition challenging Rule 3 of the Civil Services Examination Rules 2024. This rule grants the Persons with Benchmark Disability (PwBD) in the General/Economically Weaker Section/Other Backward Classes (GL/EWS/OBC) category nine attempts, while those from the SC/ST category are allowed unlimited attempts. The petitioner, Dharmendra Kumar, contended that this distinction was discriminatory, particularly in terms of the number of attempts allowed for PwBD candidates belonging to the OBC category compared to those in the SC/ST category. The petitioner argued that PwBD should be treated as a distinct class, and therefore, the differentiation in the number of attempts allowed to candidates from the SC/ST and OBC categories was arbitrary and discriminatory. The division bench, comprising Justice Bharati Dangre and Justice Ashwin D. Bhobe, rejected this contention and emphasised the constitutional distinction between the SC/ST and OBC categories, as well as the horizontal and vertical reservation systems. The court’s judgment clarified that while PwBD is indeed a horizontal reservation, it must align with the vertical reservation provided to the SC/ST and OBC categories, resulting in the differentiation of attempt limits. The court held that the classification between SC/ST and OBC categories within the PwBD framework was constitutionally valid, reaffirming the principles of distinct status for SC/ST in the Constitution.
Arguments of Both Sides:
The petitioner argued that persons with benchmark disabilities (PwBD) form a distinct class and should not be subject to discriminatory treatment based on their category (SC/ST vs. OBC). He contended that the imposition of a limit of nine attempts for PwBD candidates in the OBC category while granting unlimited attempts to those in the SC/ST category was arbitrary. He further asserted that the Constitution does not differentiate between PwBD candidates based on their caste or community, and the restriction on attempts for PwBD candidates in the OBC category violated the principle of equality before the law.
The Union of India and other respondents, including the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances, and Pension, defended Rule 3 of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2024, arguing that the differentiation in the number of attempts for PwBD candidates is based on the vertical reservation system recognised in the Constitution. They emphasised that the SC/ST and OBC categories are distinct classes with a specific connotation under the Constitution, and thus, the differentiation in the number of attempts for PwBD candidates from these categories was constitutional. They also pointed out that the reservation system for PwBD is a horizontal reservation, and it must co-exist with the vertical reservation system for SC/ST and OBC categories.
Court’s Judgment:
The Bombay High Court, in its judgment, explained that the distinction between SC/ST and OBC categories is firmly established in the Constitution and that these categories represent different classes with specific legal implications. The Court emphasised that the SC/ST categories have a constitutional status that is distinct from that of OBC candidates. SC/ST is considered a vertical reservation category with its own set of benefits and entitlements. In contrast, OBC candidates belong to a different vertical reservation class.
The Court then addressed the argument of the petitioner that PwBD candidates should be treated as a separate class without regard to their category (SC/ST or OBC) and thus be entitled to the same number of attempts. The Court rejected this argument, affirming that PwBD reservation operates as a horizontal reservation and should be integrated with vertical reservation categories such as SC/ST and OBC. This integration allows for differentiation in the number of attempts based on the distinct status of candidates belonging to SC/ST and OBC categories.
In its reasoning, the Court stated that the classification between SC/ST and OBC categories is not arbitrary, as these two categories have distinct constitutional statuses, and the rules for civil services examinations reflect this distinction. Consequently, the number of attempts allowed for PwBD candidates depends on whether they belong to the SC/ST category (unlimited attempts) or the OBC category (nine attempts). The Court concluded that Rule 3 of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2024, does not violate the principles of equality and non-discrimination and upheld its validity.
The Court observed that the legal distinction between SC/ST and OBC categories is based on long-standing constitutional provisions and that the horizontal reservation for PwBD candidates does not negate this differentiation. The petitioner’s request to treat all PwBD candidates equally, irrespective of their SC/ST or OBC status, was, therefore, dismissed.