The Supreme Court on Tuesday clarified the interplay between vertical and horizontal reservations in public employment, holding that a post reserved horizontally for Persons with Disabilities (Low Vision) under the Unreserved category is open to all candidates possessing the PWD-LV attribute, irrespective of their vertical social category (SC, ST, OBC or General), and must be filled strictly on merit. A bench comprising Justices Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Sanjay Karol set aside the Division Bench judgment of the Calcutta High Court which had directed that the UR (PWD-LV) vacancy must be filled only by an unreserved PWD-LV candidate even if a more meritorious PWD-LV candidate from a reserved category (OBC-A) was available.
The dispute arose from the recruitment notification issued by the West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Company Limited for 30 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II. Out of these, one post was earmarked as UR (PWD-LV) while five posts were reserved for OBC-A. The notification contained a specific stipulation that “in case of non-availability of qualified UR (PWD-LV) candidate, the vacancy will be filled up by PWD candidates of other categories as per merit”. Respondent No.1, who belonged to the UR (PWD-LV) category, secured 55.667 marks. Respondent No.3, who belonged to the OBC-A category but was also PWD-LV, secured a higher 66.667 marks. The employer appointed Respondent No.3 against the UR (PWD-LV) post on the basis of superior merit. Respondent No.1 challenged the appointment before the Calcutta High Court, contending that once a qualified UR (PWD-LV) candidate was available, the vacancy could not be filled by a candidate from any other category.
The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, holding that the more meritorious PWD-LV candidate from the OBC-A category was rightly appointed. However, the Division Bench reversed the order and directed appointment of Respondent No.1, taking the view that the presence of a qualified unreserved PWD-LV candidate barred consideration of any reserved category PWD-LV candidate for that post.
Setting aside the Division Bench’s judgment, the Supreme Court explained the fundamental distinction between vertical (social) and horizontal (special) reservations. Vertical reservations for SC, ST and OBC are “inviolate” and must be filled only by candidates belonging to those categories. Horizontal reservations, on the other hand, cut across vertical categories and operate on the principle of interlocking. When a horizontal reservation such as PWD-LV is applied to an unreserved post, the post remains open to all candidates who possess the PWD-LV attribute, irrespective of their vertical social category. The Court emphasised that the unreserved category does not constitute a separate communal or social category; it represents the residual vacancies open to all, subject only to the horizontal condition attached to it.
The Supreme Court further held that the principle of “migration” or “mobility” applies equally to horizontal reservations falling under the unreserved category. A more meritorious candidate belonging to a reserved vertical category but possessing the required horizontal attribute (PWD-LV) can legitimately be appointed against the unreserved horizontal post. Denying such a candidate on the ground that an unreserved PWD-LV candidate is available would defeat the concept of merit, which is the governing criterion for appointments in the unreserved category. The Court observed that the recruitment notification’s “non-availability” clause was merely a fallback provision and could not be read to impose an absolute bar against considering more meritorious reserved category PWD-LV candidates.
The Supreme Court reiterated that once a candidate from a reserved vertical category is selected against an unreserved post on the basis of merit, his or her original vertical category status remains unaffected for all other purposes. Such selection does not diminish the quota of the reserved category from which the candidate hails. The Court also noted that the same logic would apply symmetrically: a less meritorious unreserved PWD-LV candidate cannot claim precedence over a more meritorious reserved category PWD-LV candidate.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court restored the appointment of Respondent No.3 against the UR (PWD-LV) post and held that the Division Bench had erred in interpreting the recruitment notification in a manner contrary to well-settled principles of reservation law.
Case Title: The West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Dipendu Biswas & Ors.
Civil Appeal No.: 10262 of 2025
Coram: Justices Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Sanjay Karol
Click HERE for full Judgment
Lawcutor 