Introduction:

In the case titled Smt. Jaswant Kaur v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., the Rajasthan High Court dealt with the petition of a disabled candidate seeking a position as a Female Health Worker (Nurse) under the specially abled category. The petitioner, who suffers from 61% polio disability in both legs, had applied for the post but was disqualified due to her disability not fitting within the guidelines for eligibility under the reservation category. The petitioner had temporarily served in this capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic, and her application included a request for consideration of bonus marks based on this prior experience. However, her candidature was rejected because her disability, which affected both legs, did not align with the criteria set out for the post.

Arguments of the Petitioner:

The petitioner, Smt. Jaswant Kaur argued that her prior experience of working as a Female Health Worker during the COVID-19 pandemic should be taken into account and that she should be granted the benefit of reservation under the specially abled category despite her disability affecting both legs. She sought the Court’s intervention to ensure that her service during the pandemic, even though temporary, was recognized and considered for awarding bonus marks as per the guidelines. Her counsel also contended that her physical disability did not affect her ability to perform the duties of the post, and she should be treated equally with other candidates applying for the position.

Arguments of the Respondent (State of Rajasthan):

On behalf of the respondents, the State of Rajasthan, represented by the government counsel, asserted that the petitioner did not meet the criteria set out in the Gazette Notification dated January 7, 2021, which defined the disabilities eligible for reservation under the specially abled category for the post. The guidelines specifically mentioned single-leg disability, which the petitioner did not satisfy, as she had a disability in both legs. The respondents argued that the petitioner’s disability rendered her unsuitable for the post, as the job involved physical tasks that would be challenging for someone with her condition. Furthermore, the government contended that allowing the petitioner’s claim for reservation, solely based on her temporary service during the pandemic, would set a problematic precedent and contradict the established guidelines.

Court’s Judgment:

The bench, led by Justice Arun Monga, dismissed the petition, agreeing with the government’s argument that the guidelines for the reservation of the post specifically allowed only candidates with a single-leg disability. The Court noted that the guidelines were clear and had been formulated to ensure that only those with disabilities suited for the nature of the work were eligible for the reservation. Since the petitioner had a disability affecting both legs, the Court concluded that she did not meet the essential criteria for the post, as outlined in the guidelines.

The Court also addressed the petitioner’s plea for bonus marks based on her temporary service during the pandemic. The bench emphasized that merely serving in the position during a crisis did not confer any automatic right to benefit from reservation or other considerations outside the scope of the guidelines. Justice Monga highlighted that the guidelines were clear in their scope and no challenge had been made to these guidelines or the advertisement for the post, which would have been the proper avenue for contesting such eligibility criteria.

The Court further observed that other candidates with similar disabilities had been disqualified under the same criteria, and granting the petitioner’s claim would lead to reverse discrimination against those similarly disqualified candidates who were not before the Court. The principle of fairness and equality before the law was upheld, and it was noted that allowing one individual’s claim could create an unjust situation for others who were equally disqualified but did not approach the Court.

The Court also clarified that the petitioner had not raised any challenge to the advertisement or the eligibility criteria in the first place, and therefore, the claim could not be entertained at this stage. Since the guidelines were publicly available and had not been contested, the Court ruled that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought.