On Tuesday, the Supreme Court held that a horizontally reserved post under the Unreserved category must be filled purely on merit from among all eligible candidates possessing that horizontal attribute, irrespective of their social category. The Court clarified that a more meritorious candidate from a reserved category cannot be denied an unreserved post, observing that merit remains the “inseparable attribute” of appointments under the open category.
Brief facts:
The case arose from a recruitment dispute concerning appointment to a post under the Unreserved category with horizontal reservation for Persons with Disabilities (PWD-LV), governed by constitutional principles under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The controversy centred on whether a more meritorious candidate from a reserved category, possessing the required disability, could be appointed to such a post over a less meritorious unreserved candidate. While the selection authority appointed the higher-ranking candidate, the High Court’s Division Bench set aside this appointment, holding that the availability of a qualified unreserved candidate barred such consideration. This conflicting interpretation of horizontal reservation and merit led to the matter being brought before the Apex Court.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellants contended that the Division Bench erred in treating the Unreserved category as a separate class, excluding candidates from the reserved categories. The Counsel argued that the UR (PWD-LV) post, being horizontally reserved, was open to all candidates possessing the PWD-LV attribute, irrespective of their vertical classification. Emphasis was placed on the principle of merit governing unreserved posts and the doctrine of migration, which permits candidates from reserved categories to compete for open posts based on merit. The Appellant further submitted that the recruitment condition regarding “non-availability” was merely a fallback provision and could not override the fundamental principle that merit prevails in unreserved appointments.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Respondent contended that the recruitment notification clearly stipulated that only in the absence of a qualified unreserved PWD-LV candidate could candidates from other categories be considered. The Counsel argued that since a qualified unreserved candidate was available, the post ought to have been filled strictly within that category. The Respondent further submitted that allowing reserved category candidates to occupy such posts despite the availability of unreserved candidates would defeat the structure of reservation and distort the recruitment framework.
Observation of the Court:
The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karo and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed that “The only condition attached to this Unreserved/Open category in the present case is that it is meant only for candidates belonging to the horizontal PWD-LV category, i.e., it is specially reserved for persons who are categorised as PWD-LV. The Unreserved post/vacancy for PWD-LV is available and open to all, irrespective of the social category they may belong to, provided they also belong to the same special category of PWD-LV. As the said post falls under the Unreserved category, it is to be filled up purely on merit. Merit is the co-attendant and inseparable attribute of appointment to any post under the “Unreserved” category.”
The Court observed that the Unreserved/Open category does not represent any distinct social or communal class but constitutes an open pool accessible to all candidates irrespective of their caste or category. It held that such posts are not confined to general category candidates alone and remain open to candidates from SC, ST, OBC, or any other category based on merit. The Bench emphasised that treating the unreserved category as a separate vertical classification would distort the constitutional scheme of equality. It further clarified that the essence of the unreserved category lies in openness and competition, not exclusion.
The Bench held that when a horizontal reservation, such as for Persons with Disabilities (PWD-LV), is applied to an unreserved post, the only condition is that the candidate must possess that specific attribute. It emphasised that such a post remains open to all candidates across vertical categories, provided they fall within the horizontal classification. The Bench explained that horizontal reservations “interlock” with vertical categories and do not create isolated compartments within the unreserved category. It further clarified that all similarly situated candidates must be treated equally when competing for such posts.
The Court observed that merit is the sole governing factor in filling posts under the unreserved category, including those with horizontal reservations. It held that denying a more meritorious candidate merely because they belong to a reserved category would be arbitrary and contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Bench emphasised that the principle of migration allows candidates from reserved categories to compete and succeed in open category posts based on merit. It further noted that such a selection does not affect the quota of the candidate’s original reserved category.
The Bench held that the High Court erred in interpreting the “non-availability” clause in the recruitment notification as an absolute bar against considering reserved category candidates. It observed that such clauses are only fallback provisions and cannot override the fundamental principle of merit. The Bench emphasised that the presence of a less meritorious unreserved candidate cannot exclude a more meritorious candidate from another category who satisfies the horizontal reservation requirement. It further clarified that the notification must be read in harmony with established reservation jurisprudence.
The Court observed that excluding a more meritorious candidate on the sole ground of social category would violate the constitutional guarantee of equality. It held that all candidates possessing the same horizontal attribute must be treated alike when competing for an unreserved post. The Bench emphasised that any interpretation leading to a preference for a less meritorious candidate would be inherently arbitrary and legally unsustainable. It further concluded that such an approach would defeat the very purpose of merit-based selection in open category posts.
The decision of the Court:
The Apex Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench judgment, and restored the Single Bench ruling upholding the appointment of the more meritorious PWD-LV candidate from the reserved category. The Court held that horizontally reserved posts within the unreserved category must be filled strictly on merit among all eligible candidates possessing the required attribute, irrespective of their social category, reaffirming that merit prevails over classification in open category appointments.
Case Title: The West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd & Ors Vs. Dipendu Biswas & Ors
Case No.: Civil Appeal No.10262 of 2025
Citation: 2026 Latest Caselaw 266 SC
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
Advocate for the Petitioner: AOR Kunal Chatterji, Adv. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Rohit Bansal, Adv. Varij Nayan Mishra
Advocate for the Respondent: AOR Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Kunal Mimani, AOR Soumya Dutta, Adv. Samarendra Nath Biswas, Adv. Anindo Mukherjee, Adv. Deepti Garg, Adv. Shraddha Chirania, Adv. Akshay Luthra, Adv. Siddhant Upmanyu, Adv. Nisstha Balodi
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
