Madhya Pradesh High Court

Bajrang Singh Kushwaha.. [Party ... vs Northern Coal Field Ltd. on 9 October, 2025

WP No. 4328/2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN

WRIT PETITION No. 4328 of 2024

BAJRANG SINGH KUSHWAHA.. [PARTY DELETED (VIDE COURT
ORDER DATED 04/03/2025)] AND OTHERS

Versus

NORTHERN COAL FIELD LTD. AND OTHERS
.........................................................................................................
Appearance:
Shri N.P.S. Ruprah - Sr. Advocate with Ms. Muskan Anand -
Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Greeshm Jain - Advocate for respondent No.2.
Shri Akash Choudhary - Advocate for respondents No. 4 to 9
..........................................................................................................

ORDER

(Reserved on 22.09.2025) (Pronounced on 09.10.2025)

By way of this petition, the petitioners have sought the following

reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus/directions/certiorari or they like ordering the respondents:

(In case of writ of certiorari)

(a) To quash Annexure P-1 in so far as it appoints 06 OBC Candidates namely any of the 06 from respondents No.03 to 07 on the post of HEMM Operator.

(In case of writ of mandamus)

(b) To issue a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to include the petitioners in the impugned list of selected candidates i.e. Annexure P-1 replacing those who have got the least marks by modifying the select list accordingly.

(c) This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass such other order or orders as it may deem under the facts and circumstances of the case

2. The respondents at the outset have submitted that arising out of the

same recruitment process, WP No. 3871 of 2024 has been dismissed by the

Coordinate Bench of this Court and therefore, the present petition also

deserves to meet the same fate.

3. The counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, has vehemently argued

that the Coordinate Bench in the aforesaid case has not considered the facts

and law in true perspective and has vehemently argued that the finding

arrived at by the Coordinate Bench in dismissing the said petition that

reservation roster and guidelines issued by the Central Government have

been duly followed by the authorities, is not proper and therefore, the said

judgment of the Coordinate Bench is per incuriam, and therefore, this

Court may take a different view. An alternative prayer was made that this

Court may refer the matter to the larger Bench by noting disagreement with

the view taken by the Coordinate Bench and the matter was vehemently

argued and the Senior counsel for the petitioner had tried to convince this

Court at length to take a different view or to refer the matter to the larger

Bench.

4. The matter relates to selection list issued by the respondent company

in pursuance to the employment notification (Annexure P-2) issued for

various different posts. The petitioners have alleged that the horizontal

reservation of Ex-Servicemen ("ESM" for short) category has not been

properly operated by the respondents. It is vehemently argued by the

petitioners that the respondents have operated ESM horizontal category

reservation in the manner that firstly the total number of vacancies which

were meant for ESM category were identified and the persons under ESM

category were picked up and then fitted into the respective vertical

categories. In this manner, as the number of Ex-Servicemen in the OBC

category were proportionately more, therefore more number of vacancies in

OBC categories were consumed by OBC-ESM category candidates and in

this manner the reservation for ESM category under OBC category went up

to as much as 33 vacancies being consumed by OBC-ESM under OBC

category as against total available 47 vacancies for OBC. It is argued that

in this manner the rights of non-ESM OBC category candidates have been

violated. It is further argued that there was to be reservation for horizontal

ESM category in the manner that once 20% of vacancies were to be

reserved for ESM category, then 20% such vacancies had to be picked up

from each vertical category and not more than 20% vacancies were to be

assigned to each vertical category under ESM category.

5. It is argued that in this manner there has been excessive ESM

reservation under OBC category whereas under UR, SC and ST categories

the number of ESM candidates adjusted are very less. This has been to the

detriment and disadvantage of OBC-OPEN candidates as majority of OBC

seats have been consumed by OBC-ESM candidates.

6. Per contra, the respondents have vehemently opposed the petition

and have argued that this Court should follow the view taken by the

Coordinate Bench in WP No. 3871 of 2024 and that the reservation has

been operated by them in accordance with the statutory rules framed by the

Government of India, known as the Ex-servicemen (Re-employment in

Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979, so also the Executive

Instructions issued by the Central Government from time to time dated 1-

12-1994 and 22-09-2020 placed on record as Annexures R-1, R-2 and R-3

with the reply of respondents placed on record as Document No. 9649 of

2024.

7. Upon hearing the rival parties, it appears that the dispute in fact is

operation of horizontal category of reservation. The parties had vehemently

argued on the basis of judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of

horizontal reservation in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan

Public Service Commission, (2007) 8 SCC 785, so also the subsequent

larger Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Saurav

Yadav v. State of U.P., (2021) 4 SCC 542, so also another judgment of the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sadhana Singh Dangi vs. Pinky Asati

and others. (Civil Appeal No. 7781 of 2021) decided on 16-12-2021 in the

matter of horizontal category reservation for women.

8. The respondent-company which is a subsidiary of Coal India Limited

seems to have operated ESM reservation which is a horizontal category

reservation on the basis of horizontal-cum-overall reservation and the

petitioners claim that it should be in the manner of horizontal-cum-

compartmentwise. In the State of Madhya Pradesh the reservations in

horizontal categories are being made horizontal-cum-compartmentwise

mode, whereas in the present case the respondents being Government of

India owned PSU, have made reservation in the manner of horizontal-cum-

overall.

9. The system of horizontal-cum-overall reservation as against

horizontal-cum-compartmentwise reservation was considered by the

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P.,

(1995) 5 SCC 173 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court had taken note of the

two modes of horizontal reservation and held that horizontal reservation

can be by either/both of the said two modes. The Hon'ble Apex court has

held as under :-

15. On a careful consideration of the revised notification of 17-12-1994 and the aforementioned corrigendum issued by the Lucknow University, we are of the opinion that in view of the ambiguous language employed therein, it is not possible to give a definite answer to the question whether the horizontal reservations are overall reservations or compartmentalised reservations. We may explain these two expressions. Where the seats reserved for horizontal reservations are proportionately divided among the vertical (social) reservations and are not intertransferable, it would be a case of compartmentalised reservations. We may illustrate what we say: Take this very case; out of the total 746 seats, 112 seats (representing fifteen per cent) should be filled by special reservation candidates; at the same time, the social reservation in favour of Other Backward Classes is 27% which means 201 seats for OBCs; if the 112 special reservation seats are also divided proportionately as between OC, OBC, SC and ST, 30 seats would be allocated to the OBC category; in other words, thirty special category students can be accommodated in the OBC category; but say only ten special reservation candidates belonging to OBC are available, then these ten candidates will, of course, be allocated among OBC quota but the remaining twenty seats cannot be transferred to OC category (they will be available for OBC candidates only) or for that matter, to any other category; this would be so whether requisite number of special reservation candidates (56 out of

373) are available in OC category or not; the special reservation would be a watertight compartment in each of the vertical reservation classes (OC, OBC, SC and ST). As against this, what happens in the overall reservation is that while allocating the special reservation students to their respective social reservation category, the overall reservation in favour of special reservation categories has yet to be honoured. This means that in the above illustration, the twenty remaining seats would be transferred to OC category which means that the number of special reservation candidates in OC category would be 56+20=76. Further, if no special reservation candidate belonging to SC and ST is available then the proportionate number of seats meant for special reservation candidates in SC and ST also get transferred to OC category. The result would be that 102 special reservation candidates have to be accommodated in the OC category to complete their quota of 112.

The converse may also happen, which will prejudice the candidates in the

reserved categories. It is, of course, obvious that the inter se quota between OC, OBC, SC and ST will not be altered.

16. Now coming to the revised notification of 17-12-1994, it says that "horizontal reservation be granted in all medical colleges on total seats of all the courses...". These words are being interpreted in two different ways by the parties; one says it is overall reservation while the other says it is compartmentalised. Para 2 says that the candidates selected under the aforesaid special categories "would be kept under the categories of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes/Other Backward Classes/General to which they belong. For example, if a candidate dependent on a freedom fighter selected on the basis of reservation belongs to a Scheduled Caste, he will be adjusted against the seat reserved for Scheduled Castes". This is sought to be read by the petitioners as affirming that it is a case of compartmentalised reservation. May be or may not be. It appears that while issuing the said notification, the Government was not conscious of the distinction between overall horizontal reservation and compartmentalised horizontal reservation. At any rate, it may not have had in its contemplation the situation like the one which has arisen now. This is probably the reason that this aspect has not been stated in clear terms.

17. It would have been better -- and the respondents may note this for their future guidance -- that while providing horizontal reservations, they should specify whether the horizontal reservation is a compartmental one or an overall one. As a matter of fact, it may not be totally correct to presume that the Uttar Pradesh Government was not aware of this distinction between "overall horizontal reservation" and "compartmentalised horizontal reservation", since it appears from the judgment in Swati Gupta [(1995) 2 SCC 560] that in the first notification issued by the Government of Uttar Pradesh on 17-5-1994, the thirty per cent reservation for ladies was split up into each of the other reservations. For example, it was stated against backward classes that the percentage of reservation in their favour was twenty-seven per cent but at the same time it was stated that thirty per cent of those seats were reserved for ladies. Against every vertical reservation, a similar provision was made, which meant that the said horizontal reservation in favour of ladies was to be a "compartmentalised horizontal reservation". We are of the opinion that in the interest of avoiding any complications and intractable problems, it would be better that in future the horizontal reservations are compartmentalised in the sense explained above. In other words, the notification inviting applications should itself state not only the percentage of horizontal reservation(s) but should also specify the number of seats reserved for them in each of the social reservation categories, viz., ST, SC, OBC and OC. If this is not done there is always a possibility of one or the other vertical reservation category suffering prejudice as has happened in this case. As pointed out hereinabove, 110 seats out of 112 seats meant for special reservations have been taken away from the OC category alone -- and none from the OBC or for that matter, from SC or ST. It can well happen the other way also in a given year.

18. Now, coming to the correctness of the procedure prescribed by the revised notification for filling up the seats, it was wrong to direct the fifteen per cent special reservation seats to be filled up first and then take up the OC (merit) quota (followed by filling of OBC, SC and ST quotas). The proper and correct course is to first fill up the OC quota (50%) on the basis of merit; then fill up each of the social reservation quotas, i.e., SC, ST and BC; the third step would be to find out how many candidates belonging to special reservations have been selected on the above basis. If the quota fixed for horizontal reservations is already satisfied -- in case it is an overall horizontal reservation -- no further question arises. But if it is not so satisfied, the requisite number of special reservation candidates shall have to be taken and adjusted/accommodated against their respective social reservation categories by deleting the corresponding number of candidates therefrom. (If, however, it is a case of compartmentalised horizontal reservation, then the process of verification and adjustment/accommodation as stated above should be applied separately to each of the vertical reservations. In such a case, the reservation of fifteen per cent in favour of special categories, overall, may be satisfied or may not be satisfied.) Because the revised notification provided for a different method of filling the seats, it has contributed partly to the unfortunate situation where the entire special reservation quota has been allocated and adjusted almost exclusively against the OC quota.

10. Subsequently, in the matter of ESM reservation, a Division Bench of

Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Balwan Singh & Others Vs.

Satte of Haryana & Ors., 2021 (1) ILR-P&H 1068 has considered the

judgment in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta (Supra) as well as the judgment

in the case of Sourav Yadav (Supra) and has upheld the validity of

horizontal-cum-compartment wise reservation system being followed in the

State of Haryana in the matter of ESM reservation.

11. The modality of reservation which has been followed by the

respondents in the present case is horizontal-cum-overall reservation.

Nothing has been placed on record to indicate that such type of horizontal

reservation would be bad in law. In the present case the said reservation

does not exceed the total number of seats meant for OBC category or for