Rekha Sharma's journey to become a civil judge in Rajasthan has involved more than clearing an examination and winning a legal battle. Even after the Supreme Court directed her appointment in April 2025, a medical assessment created another obstacle, putting her eligibility for the post in question. The latest development came on October 27, 2026, when the Supreme Court dismissed an application filed by the Rajasthan High Court and directed it to complete her appointment process. The case has raised an important question: can a medical board set up to assess a candidate's fitness for a job also reduce the disability percentage recorded in a valid government certificate?
A legal battle that began with an examination
Rekha, who has low vision, received a disability certificate from the Rajasthan government's Department of Medical and Health on November 2, 2020. The certificate recorded her visual disability at 40 per cent, meeting the benchmark disability threshold under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. She later applied for the Rajasthan Judicial Services examination. Her struggle was not simply about appearing for the examination. She argued that candidates with benchmark disabilities were not being given a separate and fair cut-off, which affected her opportunity to move forward in the selection process. The issue continued into the 2024 recruitment cycle. The Rajasthan High Court advertised 222 civil judge vacancies, including nine reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities. Rekha qualified for the main examination and was eventually allowed to appear for the interview after approaching the courts. When the final results were announced in October 2024, however, she was not selected. The PwBD cut-off for the mains was 121.5 marks, while Rekha had scored 119. She argued that she had crossed the minimum qualifying requirement of 117.25 marks and should have been considered for an available disability-reserved vacancy.
The Supreme Court gives her another chance
Rekha approached the Supreme Court, seeking consideration for appointment. On April 15, 2025, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma took note of her marks and the circumstances surrounding the available vacancies. The court observed that she had secured the minimum qualifying marks. It also considered the fact that one candidate with a visual disability had been accommodated under the Scheduled Tribes category, which could have left room for another eligible candidate in the disability category. Using its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution, which allow it to pass orders to ensure complete justice, the Supreme Court directed the authorities to appoint Rekha as a Civil Judge (Junior Division). It said she could be accommodated against an available disability-reserved vacancy or through a supernumerary post, an additional post created beyond the sanctioned vacancies. The order appeared to bring her long wait to an end. But the appointment process still had to move through the required verification and medical fitness checks.
How 40 per cent became 30 per cent
During the appointment-related medical assessment, a board at Sawai Man Singh Hospital in Jaipur examined Rekha between March 25 and 28, 2026. It recorded her disability at 30 per cent, instead of the 40 per cent mentioned in her government-issued certificate. That difference was significant. Under the law, a person generally needs at least 40 per cent of a specified disability to qualify as a person with benchmark disability and claim the associated reservation benefits. The medical board also recorded that Rekha was not eligible under the physically handicapped category. Her lawyers challenged the assessment, arguing that the board's role was to determine whether she was medically fit to perform the duties of a civil judge. They maintained that it was not authorised to reassess or reduce the disability percentage already certified by the competent government authority. They also argued that the original certificate had not been challenged through the appeal process provided under Section 59 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act. Rekha sought a fresh medical examination or restoration of her candidature through a representation to the Rajasthan High Court's Registrar General on August 5, 2026. After she did not receive effective relief, she approached the Supreme Court again on September 19.
Supreme Court rejects the High Court's application
On October 27, 2026, the Supreme Court dismissed an application filed by the Rajasthan High Court in connection with her appointment. The bench described the application as "highly frivolous" and said it appeared to have been filed to avoid compliance with its earlier directions. It also directed the High Court to complete the appointment process. The ruling has brought renewed attention to the distinction between assessing a person's fitness for a particular job and determining the extent of their disability. Rekha's lawyers have argued that the two assessments serve different purposes and should not be treated as interchangeable. For Rekha, the latest intervention is another step towards the judicial career she has been fighting for. Her case also highlights the difficulties that candidates with disabilities can face even after meeting examination requirements and obtaining court protection. A government certificate, a selection process and a Supreme Court order should offer clarity. Her experience shows how complicated the road to an appointment can become when those safeguards are questioned.
