Shiva Singh Parihar vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 17986 MP

                                                             1

                           IN      THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                 AT JABALPUR
                                                      BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
                                                   CHIEF JUSTICE
                                                         &
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
                                              ON THE 30 th OF OCTOBER, 2023
                                               WRIT APPEAL No. 1653 of 2023

                          BETWEEN:-
                          SHIVA SINGH PARIHAR D/O SHRI RAJ BAHADUR
                          PARIHAR, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                          ASSISTANT VETERINARY FIELD OFFICER, R/O H. NO.70,
                          BANSAGAR COLONY, RAMPUR BAGHELAN, DISTRICT
                          SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                         .....APPELLANT
                          (BY SHRI K.D. SINGH - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.     THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH
                                 THE SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF VETERINARY
                                 SCIENCE     AND   ANIMAL     HUSBANDRY
                                 MANTRALAYA, VALLABH BHAWAN, DISTRICT
                                 BHOPAL (M.P.)

                          2.     M.P. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, THROUGH
                                 S EC R ETA R Y, RESIDENCY AREA, GWALIOR
                                 BUILDING DELHI COLLEGE ROAD DISTRICT
                                 INDORE (M.P.)

                                                                                      .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI S.S. CHOUHAN - GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE)

                                 This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
                          Vishal Mishra passed the following:
                                                              ORDER

Assailing the order dated 07.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 11/3/2023 6:09:22 PM

dismissing Writ Petition No.20140 of 2017, the writ petitioner is in appeal.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that an advertisement was published on 18.05.2016 for recruitment to the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeon. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner applied for the same. The reservation policy was applicable and in addition to the vertical reservation, the horizontal reservation was also applied. The respondents proceeded with the selection process and the results were declared on 03.10.2017. The petitioner was declared as successful candidate and was placed at Sl. No.32 in the waiting list. As many as 20 women candidates belonging to SCs, STs and OBCs categories were declared as selected against the non-reserved post.

3. The claim of the petitioner is that the benefit of horizontal reservation provided for unreserved women category candidates has also been extended to the candidates belonging to the reserved category i.e. SCs, STs and OBCs. The same could not have been done. As the petitioner could not secure his appointment owing to the wrong applicability of the horizontal reservation to the unreserved women category candidates, the writ petition was filed.

4. The learned writ court has considered the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sadhana Singh Bangi and others vs Pinki Asati and others decided on 16.12.2021 in Civil Appeal No.7781 of 2021 reported in (2022) 12 SCC 401 and has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that if the reserved category candidates obtained marks and secured the position in the merit list then the appointment can be given on the unreserved seat also.

5. The counsel appearing for the petitioner was put a specific question to the aforesaid respect that whether the candidates belonging to SCs, STs and OBCs categories who have been granted appointment under the unreserved category were finding their places in the merit list over and above the petitioner. He could Signature Not Verified Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 11/3/2023 6:09:22 PM

not dispute the aforesaid position. He has fairly submitted that although they were finding their places in the merit list over and above the petitioner but they have been granted appointment on the seats which have been reserved for women category under the unreserved quota.

6. Be that as it may. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sadhana Singh Dangi (supra) has clarified the aforesaid position and held as under :

"21. We need not separately set out the issues which arise for consideration in the instant matters and proceed to have a threadbare discussion as, in our view, the instant matters are fully covered by the pronouncement of this Court in Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P., (2021) 4 SCC 542.

22. It is true that the leading judgment in Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P. considered the matter from a general plane but the concurring judgment authored by S. Ravindra Bhat, J. did additionally consider the issue from the perspective of absence of any statutory rules in the field. It is also true that in the instant case, there are rules occupying the field and the case would be a fortiori, but we need not enter into that arena as, in our view, the general propositions laid down in Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P. by themselves are sufficient to take care of the controversy which has arisen in the instant matters.

23. The law laid down in Saurav Yadav is very clear that even while applying horizontal reservation, the merit must be given precedence and that if the candidates who belong to SCs, STs and OBCs have secured higher marks or are more meritorious, they must be considered against the seats meant for unreserved candidates.

24. The observations made by the High Court in the instant case, in our view, do not lay down the correct law. The High Court failed to appreciate that conceptually there would be no distinction between vertical and horizontal reservations, when it comes to the basic idea that even the candidates belonging to reserved categories can as well stake a claim to seats in unreserved categories if their merit position entitles them to do so.

25. We have, therefore, no hesitation in setting aside the judgment and order under appeal and in dismissing the writ petitions and other connected matters challenging the revised select list. Ordered accordingly."

Signature Not Verified

7. The learned writ court has considered the aforesaid aspect and has held Signed by: VINOD VISHWAKARMA Signing time: 11/3/2023 6:09:22 PM

that there cannot be any distinction between the horizontal and vertical reservation when the seat is being granted in terms of the merit position as per entitlement of the candidates. There is no illegality committed by the writ court in applying the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sadhana Singh Dangi (supra). The counsel for the appellant failed to make out a case warranting interference as he could not distinguish the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case.

8. The writ appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.

                                  (RAVI MALIMATH)                                    (VISHAL MISHRA)
                                    CHIEF JUSTICE                                         JUDGE
                          vinod




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINOD
VISHWAKARMA
Signing time: 11/3/2023
6:09:22 PM