The West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd & Ors. vs Dipendu Biswas & Ors.

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.10262 OF 2025

THE WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION CO.LTD & ORS. ..APPELLANT (S)

VERSUS

DIPENDU BISWAS & ORS. ..RESPONDENT (S)

JUDGMENT

NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the

Signature Not Verified judgment and order dated 07.05.2024 passed by the Digitally signed by RAJNI MUKHI Date: 2026.04.07 16:57:56 IST Reason: Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta in MAT

Page 1 of 39 69/2024 with CAN 1 of 2024, whereby the order passed

by the Single Bench in WPA 26312/2023 was set aside.

2. The core issue involved in this appeal relates to

the manner of filling of a vacancy reserved for Person

with Disability with Low Vision (PWD-LV) in the

Unreserved category UR (PWD-LV)1, where the

recruitment notification stipulated that in case of non-

availability of qualified unreserved candidate in the

PWD-LV category, the vacancy will be filled up by PWD

candidates of other categories as per merit.

3. By the impugned order, the Division Bench of the

Calcutta High Court held that when a qualified

unreserved PWD-LV candidate is available, the vacancy

is to be filled up by the qualified unreserved candidate

1 UR (PWD-LV): Unreserved (Persons with Disabilities – Low Vision or Blindness)

Page 2 of 39 only, even though there may be more meritorious PWD-

LV candidates available in the reserved category of OBC-

A, as per of the aforesaid stipulation in the recruitment

notification.

4. In order to appreciate this issue involved, a brief

reference to the relevant facts would be apposite.

5. A recruitment process was initiated by the

Appellant, West Bengal State Electricity Transmission

Co. Ltd., for appointment to a number of posts vide

Notification No. REC/2023/01.

The said notification includes 30 vacancies for the

post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade II, out of which 1

(one) post was meant for unreserved UR (PWD-LV) and

5 (five) posts for Other Backward Classes-A (OBC-A)2 as

follows.

2 OBC-A: Other Backward Class (Most Backward)

Page 3 of 39 Sl. Name of UR UR UR UR UR UR UR OBC- OBC OBC OBC the post (EC) (Ex. (MS) (PWD- (PWD- (PW A -A -B -EC S) LV) HH) D-D) (EC)

7. Junior 7 4 1 1 1 0 0 5 1 1 1 Engineer (Civil) Gr. II

SC SC SC (Ex-S) ST ST ST Total (EC) (EC) (PWD (EC)

-LV) 33 2 1 1 1 0 30

There are also two notes below the table as follows:

* In case of non-availability of qualified UR (PWD-HH) candidate, the vacancy will be filled by PWD candidates of other categories as per merit.

# In case of non-availability of qualified UR (PWD-LV) candidate, the vacancy will be filled by PWD candidates of other categories as per merit.

6. The aforesaid advertisement shows that while

certain number of posts are reserved under various

social categories (vertical), there are reservations for

special categories (horizontal) for these social categories

also, that is, reservation within reservation.

Thus, 7 (seven) posts have been earmarked for the

Unreserved Category, and further, in the same

Unreserved Category, 4 (four) posts have been reserved

Page 4 of 39 for the special category of EC3 and 1 (one) post each has

been reserved for the special categories of Ex-S4, MS5

and PWD-LV.

In respect of the social reservation (vertical)

category of OBC, it has been further sub-categorised into

OBC-A and OBC-B, and horizontal reservations have

also been provided for these two sub-categories.

Similarly, there are special (horizontal)

reservations in respect of SCs and STs, with which we

are not concerned in this case.

7. Thus, the aforesaid notification indicates both

vertical and horizontal reservations.

The horizontal reservation pattern in the aforesaid

notification indicates “compartmentalised reservations”,

3 EC : Exempted Category 4 Ex-S : Ex-Servicemen 5 MS: Meritorious Sportspersons

Page 5 of 39 not “overall reservations”, to use the terms described in

Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P.6, as referred to in

Saurav Yadav Vs. State of UP7, where the posts

reserved for various categories of horizontal reservations

are distributed among the vertical social reservations.

8. In the present case, we are concerned with the

posts of UR (PWD-LV) and OBC-A.

The reservation chart, for our convenience, can be

shown as follows:

1. UR (PWD-LV) - 1 post (to which the Respondent No.1 belongs)

2. OBC–A - 5 posts (to which the Respondent No.3 belongs)

3. OBC-A (EC) - 1 post

4. OBC-A (PWD-LV) - Nil (to which also the Respondent No. 3 belongs)

6 (1995) 5 SCC 173 7 (2021) 4 SCC 542

Page 6 of 39

9. While the Respondent No. 1 PWD-LV candidate

applied under the Unreserved category for the said post

of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II under UR (PWD-LV)

quota, it appears the Respondent No. 3 (OBC-A

candidate) applied against the said 5 (Five) posts of

Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II under the OBC-A quota.

It may be noted that there was no horizontal

reservation for the PWD-LV under the OBC-A category

in the said notification. However, in his application, the

Respondent No. 3 also stated that he belongs to the PWD

(LV) category.

10. In the said recruitment process for the post of

Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II, the Respondent No.1

scored 55.667 marks, whereas, the Respondent No.3

scored 66.667 marks. Since the Respondent No.3 under

OBC-A category also belongs to PWD-LV category and

Page 7 of 39 obtained higher marks than the Respondent No.1, he

was offered appointment to the aforesaid Unreserved

post of UR(PWD-LV) and not Respondent No.1.

11. The said offer for appointment in favour of the

Respondent No. 3 was put to challenge by the

Respondent No. 1 before the High Court at Calcutta

through a writ petition, WPA 26312/2023 in view of the

aforesaid condition in the recruitment notification which

stipulated that in case of non-availability of qualified UR

(PWD-LV) candidate, the vacancy will be filled up by

PWD candidates of the other categories as per merit.

The Writ Court, however, after finding that the

Respondent No. 3 also belonged to the PWD-LV category

and had scored more marks than the Respondent No. 1,

dismissed the said writ petition, vide order dated

11.12.2023.

Page 8 of 39

12. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ

petition, the Respondent No.1 preferred an intra-court

appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court of

Calcutta, which was registered as MAT 69 of 2024 with

CAN 1/2024.

13. The Division Bench of the High Court upon

consideration of the stipulation in the notification that

in case of non-availability of qualified UR (PWD-LV)

candidate, the vacancy will be filled by PWD candidates

of other categories as per merit, reversed the decision of

the Single Bench and allowed the appeal and directed

that since the Respondent No. 1, who is an unreserved

candidate was available, should be given appointment to

the said post under UR (PWD-LV).

14. The Division Bench of the High Court took the

view that considering the aforesaid condition in the

Page 9 of 39 recruitment notification, as there was already available

a qualified unreserved PWD-LV candidate in the person

of the Respondent No. 1, the said vacancy could not have

been filled up by any other PWD-LV candidate belonging

to other reserved categories and it should be filled up by

a PWD-LV candidate belonging to Unreserved category

only. According to the Division Bench, it is only when a

PWD-LV candidate belonging to the Unreserved category

is not available that a PWD-LV candidate belonging to

other reserved categories can be considered for

appointment.

15. We have perused the recruitment notification no.

REC/2023/01.

The notification mentions that “In case of non-

availability of qualified UR(PWD-LV) candidate, the

Page 10 of 39 vacancy will be filled up by PWD candidates of other

categories as per merit”.

The bone of contention between the contesting

parties is to be traced to the said condition which has

been understood differently by the Single Bench and

Division Bench of the High Court.

16. As mentioned above, there were 5 (five) posts

reserved for OBC-A category in the post of Junior

Engineer (Civil) Grade-II. The said 5 (five) posts reserved

for the OBC-A were filled by OBC-A candidates in order

of merit. The Respondent No. 3 though belonged to OBC-

A category was not appointed, as it appears that there

were more meritorious OBC-A candidates above him.

17. However, as the Respondent No. 3 also belonged

to the PWD-LV category, by virtue of his better merit

position than the Respondent No. 1, he was offered

Page 11 of 39 appointment by the appellant authority to the said 1

(one) Unreserved post of UR (PWD-LV).

18. This act of the appellant authority to appoint the

Respondent No. 3 in the post of UR (PWD-LV) was

questioned by the Respondent No.1 before the High

Court premised on the condition stipulated in the

recruitment notification referred to above, by contending

that since the Respondent No.1 was a qualified PWD-LV

under the Unreserved category, during his availability,

no other candidate from any other reserved category

could have been considered for appointment, and the

Respondent No.1 should have been given appointment.

This contention was dismissed by the Single Bench, but

accepted by the Division Bench of the High Court.

19. As we proceed to examine the implications of this

condition in the recruitment notification, we will revisit

Page 12 of 39 the law relating to reservation, particularly with

reference to filling up of unreserved vacancies by

reserved candidates.

20. In view of the multifaceted nature of reservation

in India, a unique service law jurisprudence spurred by

Constitutional mandate has emerged. Reservations have

been classified into two categories, namely, vertical and

horizontal, with respect to which certain judicial norms

have evolved through a series of landmark decisions.

The definitions and interrelationship between the two

kinds of reservations have been succinctly described in

the landmark case of Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of

India8, in the following words,

“812. …..the reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes [under Article 16(4)] may be called vertical reservations whereas reservations in favour of physically handicapped [under clause (1) of Article 16] can be referred to as horizontal reservations. Horizontal

8 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217

Page 13 of 39 reservations cut across the vertical reservations - that is called inter-locking reservations. To be more precise, suppose 3% of the vacancies are reserved in favour of physically handicapped persons; this would be a reservation relatable to clause (1) of Article 16. The persons selected against this quota will be placed in the appropriate category; if he belongs to S.C. category he will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments; similarly, if he belongs to open competition (O.C.) category, he will be placed in that category by making necessary adjustments. Even after providing for these horizontal reservations, the percentage of reservations in favour of backward class of citizens remains - and should remain - the same…..”

21. In respect of vertical reservation, the social

reserved category posts are to be filled by the candidates

belonging to that social category only and not by others.

However, with reference to the Unreserved or Open

category posts, there is no such restrictions as it could

be filled up by anyone from any category and there could

be movement from one reserved category to the

Unreserved category based on merit, which is called

mobility in reservation. This movement from a reserved

category to the unreserved, however, will not affect the

quota for the reserved category. This principle has been

Page 14 of 39 indicated by this Court in Indra Sawhney9 (supra) in

the following words,

“811. In this connection it is well to remember that the reservations under Article 16(4) do not operate like a communal reservation. It may well happen that some members belonging to, say, Scheduled Castes get selected in the open competition field on the basis of their own merit; they will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes; they will be treated as open competition candidates.”

22. This legal position pertaining to social (vertical)

reservation, mobility and special (horizontal) reservation

has taken firm roots and has been restated in clear

terms in the case of Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P.,10

as follows:

“59. The features of vertical reservations are:

59.1. They cannot be filled by the open category, or categories of candidates other than those specified and have to be filled by candidates of the social category concerned only (SC/ST/OBC).

59.2. Mobility (“migration”) from the reserved (specified category) to the unreserved (open category) slot is possible, based on meritorious performance.

59.3. In case of migration from reserved to open category, the vacancy in the reserved category should be filled by another person from the same specified category, lower in rank.

59.4. If the vacancies cannot be filled by the specified categories due to shortfall of candidates, the vacancies are to be “carried forward” or dealt with appropriately by rules.

60. Horizontal reservations on the other hand, by their nature, are not inviolate pools or carved in stone. They are

9 (1992) Supp (3) 217 10 (2021) 4 SCC 542

Page 15 of 39 premised on their overlaps and are “interlocking” reservations [ The expression used by B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J., in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217: 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1.] . As a sequel, they are to be calculated concurrently and along with the inviolate “vertical” (or “social”) reservation quotas, by application of the various steps laid out with clarity in para 21.3. The first rule that applies to filling horizontal reservation quotas is one of adjustment i.e. examining whether on merit any of the horizontal categories are adjusted in the merit list in the open category, and then, in the quota for such horizontal category within the particular specified/social reservation.

23. In the horizontal reservation there is also the

concept of overall reservation and compartmental

horizontal, which has been explained in Anil Kumar

Gupta11 (supra) in the following manner:

“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

11 (1995) 5 SCC 173

Page 16 of 39 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.”

24. In the present case, though the reservation

pattern as indicated in the advertisement is of

compartmentalised reservation, it may not be necessary

to dwell on that aspect much further, as the issue

Page 17 of 39 involved in the present case is only about the mobility of

a PWD-LV candidate from a reserved category of OBC-A

to the Unreserved horizontal category of UR(PWD-LV).

25. In the present case, there is no horizontal

reservation for the PWD-LV category under the social

category of the OBC-A category, but there is a horizontal

reservation for the PWD-LV under the Unreserved or

Open category. The question that arises for

consideration is what should be the method of filling up

such horizontal reservation for PWD-LV, which falls

under the Unreserved or Open category.

26. The correct answer can be arrived at once we

understand the scope of reservation for a special

category (horizontal) of PWD-LV falling under the

Unreserved or Open category.

Page 18 of 39 For this, it is also necessary to understand the

meaning and scope of the “Unreserved” or “Open”

category of reservation.

27. In reservation law, it is well settled that

Unreserved/Open category does not refer to any

social/communal category like SCs, STs or OBCs. In

other words, any post falling under the Unreserved or

Open category does not pertain to any particular social

category; it provides an open field or pool meant for the

world at large, in the sense that it is open to all

candidates, irrespective of whether one belongs to any

social or special category or not.

28. In our view, when we talk of horizontal or special

reservation pertaining to the Unreserved category, a

similar position will prevail. This characteristic or

attribute of the Unreserved or Open category will

Page 19 of 39 continue to apply even under the horizontal/special

reservation, under the Unreserved category only with the

exception that it will be qualified by the nature of the

special category for which it is meant. In other words,

when the special (horizontal) reservation is applied to the

Unreserved/Open category, it will be open to all

candidates irrespective of the social category, provided

they are also endowed with the character of the same

special (horizontal) categorisation. Thus, a post

earmarked for special (horizontal) reservation under the

Unreserved category will be open to every candidate

possessing the attribute or character of the special

(horizontal) reservation.

29. The difference in the concept of Unreserved/Open

category in the vertical, and that in the horizontal

reservation under the Unreserved category is that, in

Page 20 of 39 respect of vertical reservation, the Unreserved/Open

quota does not belong to any of the social categories and

is open to all irrespective of the social categorisation. On

the other hand, with respect to the special (horizontal)

reservation under the Unreserved/Open category, it

means that, although it is also open to all social

categories, such a candidate must also belong to the

same special (horizontal) category.

30. Thus, if the Unreserved/Open post is meant for

the special category of Persons with Disabilities, it

means that the said post will be open to all candidates

of all vertical social categories, whether SC, ST or OBC,

provided such candidates are also Persons with

Disabilities. Thus, all candidates, whether SC, ST or

OBC, but who are Persons with Disabilities, are equally

entitled to compete for the post meant for Persons with

Page 21 of 39 Disabilities falling under the Unreserved category, the

rationale being that all those who are similarly situated

must be treated equally.

31. The principle of migration in reservation will be

applicable in this scenario also. Thus, even though there

are candidates under the Unreserved category who are

Persons with Disabilities, if there are more meritorious

candidates belonging to any of the social categories like

SC, ST or OBC who are also Persons with Disabilities,

such more meritorious persons from the SC, ST or OBC

category can be appointed against the Unreserved quota

meant for Person with Disabilities by virtue of merit.

32. This principle has been indicated by this Court in

Saurav Yadav12 (supra) in para 60 therefore, wherein it

12 (2021) 4 SCC 542

Page 22 of 39 was held that the first rule that applies to filling

horizontal reservation quotas is one of adjustment i.e.

examining whether on merit any of the horizontal

categories are adjusted in the merit list in the open

category, and then, in the quota for such horizontal

category within the particular specified/social

reservation.

33. However, the vice versa will not be true. Thus, if a

post is reserved for Persons with Disabilities (PWD) for

the social category of OBC-A, only Persons with

Disabilities under the OBC-A category can apply, and no

other PWD candidates belonging to ST, SC, or

Unreserved category can be considered, since the

reservation is compartmentalised.

Page 23 of 39

34. Similarly, candidates belonging to other special

(horizontal) categories like PWD-HH13 (Hearing

impairment) or Ex-Serviceman (Ex.S) or Exempted

Category (EC) will also not be eligible to apply for the

post meant for PWD-LV even if it is under the Unreserved

category, as the said Unreserved post is reserved for

PWD-LV category only, and not for other horizontal

categories like PWD-HH, Ex.S or EC. Thus, only those

qualified as PWD-LV can be considered.

35. In the present case, the Respondent No.3 though

belongs to OBC-A category also falls under PWD-LV

category of horizontal reservation. Since the post under

Unreserved category is reserved for PWD-LV category, the

Respondent No.3 has also the right to be considered for

appointment to the said post of PWD-LV under the

13 PWD-HH: Person with Disabilities (Hearing Impairment)

Page 24 of 39 Unreserved category. The Respondent No.3 can always

stake a claim for the said post by virtue of being in the

category of PWD-LV on the basis of merit. Similarly, had

there been any other SC or ST candidate who also belongs

to the PWD-LV category, he could have also been

considered for the post of UR (PWD-LV). But it appears

that there were no such PWD-LV candidates from other

social categories like SC or ST and even if so, were not

found meritorious enough to be considered.

36. The aforesaid principles have to be kept in mind

in understanding the implication of the aforesaid

condition in the recruitment notification, that in case of

non-availability of qualified UR (PWD-LV), the vacancy

will be filled up by other categories of PWD-LV as per

merit.

Page 25 of 39

37. This condition has to be read and understood in

consonance with and not contrary to the well-established

principles of law relating to appointment to Unreserved

posts and the law of migration to Unreserved posts.

38. Thus, this horizontally reserved post of PWD-LV

falling under the Unreserved category can be filled by any

PWD-LV candidate belonging to any social reserved

category, as this post of PWD-LV under the Unreserved

category is also open to all PWD-LV candidates belonging

to any social reserved category. In other words, any

candidate belonging to any social category can compete

for this post so long as they belong to the PWD-LV

category. The principle of mobility will also apply when

filling the said post of UR (PWD-LV).

39. This legal position is fortified by the other note

appended to the recruitment notification, which provides

Page 26 of 39 that in case of non-availability of a qualified UR (PWD-

HH) candidate, the vacancy will be filled by PWD

candidates of other categories as per merit. Since this

post of UR (PWD-HH) is reserved for the special category

of PWD-HH, all such candidates who are also categorised

as PWD with Hearing disability, belonging to any social

category can also apply.

40. It may also be noticed that even though there are

other horizontal reservations for categories like PWD-LV,

EC, Ex-Servicemen in respect of other social categories

like SC, ST and OBC-B in the recruitment notification, no

such stipulation is provided for these categories but only

for the Unreserved category. It is for this reason that, with

respect to compartmentalised horizontal reservation for

these social categories, there cannot be any adjustment

or migration from other social categories. Such vacancies

Page 27 of 39 have to be filled up by candidates in that particular social

category qualifying the specific horizontal category. On

the other hand, as long as any such horizontal

reservation is provided for the Unreserved category, it will

be open to all candidates who also belong to the same

special category of horizontal reservation.

41. The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court,

however, has taken the view that this condition in the

recruitment notification prevents the filling up of the

vacancy in the UR (PWD-LV) category from any other

social category if a qualified unreserved candidate is

available.

This view is not in consonance with the principle

as discussed above. This view presupposes the fallacious

position that ‘Unreserved” category is another

Page 28 of 39 communal or social or special category as distinct from

other reserved categories. However, there is no

communal or social or special category under the

nomenclature “Unreserved”. It merely denotes the

remaining vacancies or percentages of posts available

after accounting the posts/percentages under different

reservation categories. 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.

Page 29 of 39 Merit is the co-attendant and inseparable attribute of

appointment to any post under the “Unreserved”

category. As a consequence, every person belonging to

any social reserved category, can compete with others,

including those under the “Unreserved” category and

can be appointed against such Unreserved post, so long

as they belong to the special PWD-LV category, as it is

the condition that the post under the Unreserved

category is reserved for the horizontal category of PWD-

LV.

42. The individual status of such a reserved candidate

as regards his social/communal categorisation,

however, will remain unaffected for all other purposes.

For example, if any OBC/SC/ST candidate by virtue of

his merit is appointed to an Unreserved/Open post by

virtue of his merit, he will continue to remain in the

Page 30 of 39 OBC/ST/SC category as the case may be. He would not

lose his identity as OBC/SC/ST for all other purposes,

and this will also not affect the extent of reservation in

respect of his original reserved category.

43. Thus, what is stipulated in the recruitment

notification is merely stating the obvious. Certainly, if

there is no eligible and qualified unreserved candidate

available under PWD-LV category, this vacancy can be

filled by anyone belonging to any social reserved

category, but belonging to PWD-LV category. Thus, it

cannot be read to insist that so long as any PWD-LV

candidate under the Unreserved category is available,

there will be an absolute bar to consider any other

meritorious PWD-LV candidate belonging to any of the

social reserved categories and only such Unreserved

category PWD-LV candidate can be appointed

Page 31 of 39 irrespective of the merit. Such an interpretation, as

adopted by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High

Court, flies in the face of the well-settled principle of law

for filling up Unreserved posts and law of migration as

discussed above. If any Unreserved candidate (belonging

to PWD-LV) available, is found to be below in merit to

any other reserved candidate (belonging to PWD-LV),

such PWD-LV candidate belonging to the Unreserved

category cannot steal a march over the more meritorious

PWD-LV candidate from the reserved category as it

would defy the principle of merit, which is the sole

criterion for appointment under the Unreserved

category. Therefore, such less meritorious PWD-LV

candidate under the Unreserved category has to give way

to the claim of a more meritorious PWD-LV candidate

from any other reserved social categories for the said

Page 32 of 39 post of UR (PWD-LV), as was correctly held by the Single

Bench of the High Court. Any contrary view would be

patently arbitrary being opposed to the equality clause

under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

44. Therefore, in our considered opinion, what the

aforesaid condition in the recruitment notification would

mean is that even though qualified PWD-LV candidates

under the Unreserved category may be available, if there

is a PWD-LV candidate belonging to other social

reserved category available who is better in merit than

the Unreserved PWD-LV candidate available, the said

post is to be filled up by the more meritorious reserved

PWD-LV candidate by ignoring the claim of the less

meritorious Unreserved candidate by virtue of merit.

Qua a vacancy/post under “Unreserved” category for the

PWD-LV candidates, all PWD-LV candidates are equal

Page 33 of 39 and have similar rights even if they belong to different

social reserved categories, and the most meritorious

amongst them has to be preferred.

45. The aforesaid position results from the application

of the principle enumerated in Saurav Yadav’s14 case

wherein this Court explained the manner in which

horizontal reservation is to be filled, under which it has

to be first examined whether on merit any of the

horizontal category can be adjusted in the open category,

and then in the quota of the horizontal category within

the particular social reservation. Thus, it has to be

ascertained whether the Respondent No. 3 can be

adjusted against the PWD-LV vacancy in the Unreserved

category by virtue of his merit, which has been done and

was adjusted, as he was more meritorious than anyone

14 (2021) 4 SCC 542

Page 34 of 39 else including the Respondent No. 1 in the Unreserved

category. The second situation of adjustment against the

horizontal category within the social category will not

arise in the present case, as there is no horizontal

reservation for the OBC-A category.

46. There is one more aspect of reservation law which

may be looked into when it relates to migration to the

Unreserved category.

Providing reservation of appointment for posts in

favour of any backward class of citizens is guaranteed

under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, and it has

also been well settled that the reservation is in the

nature of affirmative action and is not an exception to

the principle of equality. Such special provisions have

been made to provide an equitable setting to level up the

weaker sections so that the real or factual equality can

Page 35 of 39 be ensured and does not remain illusory as observed by

this Court in Neil Aurelio Nunes (OBC reservation) vs.

Union of India15. Further in respect of reserved

categories, the law permits relaxation of certain

qualifications for appointment, however, subject to the

condition that such relaxation does not destroy the

essential standard requirements, for example, as

regards requirements relating to age or experience etc.

Such relaxations have been provided to enable such

classes to catch up with the rest of the society. Such

relaxation, however, will be confined for the purposes of

appointment within the reserved categories and cannot

be made applicable for appointment under

Unreserved/Open category for the reason is that in

respect of Unreserved/Open category, the essential

15 (2022) 4 SCC 1

Page 36 of 39 qualifications or conditions required for recruitment

must be equal in all respects and merit being the only

decisive factor.

47. Thus, a reserved PWD-LV candidate being offered

an appointment against an Unreserved PWD-LV

vacancy/post must not have availed any relaxation in

the eligibility criteria stipulated for the Unreserved PWD-

LV category. If he had availed such a relaxation, he

certainly cannot be considered to be a qualified

candidate qua the unreserved post, as has been

explained by this Court in Deepa E.V. vs. Union of

India16, reiterated in Union of India vs. Sajib Roy17.

48. In the present case, nothing has been brought to

our notice that the Respondent No. 3, though, was more

16 (2017) 12 SCC 680 17 2025 INSC 1084

Page 37 of 39 meritorious than the Respondent No. 1 had availed any

relaxation qua the essential qualifications for the said

post of UR (PWD-LV).

49. In view of the above discussion, it is clearly

evident that the Division Bench of the Calcutta High

Court had misunderstood the implication of the

aforesaid condition in the recruitment notification.

50. Consequently, for the reasons discussed above,

the appeal succeeds, and the impugned judgment and

order dated 07.05.2024 passed by the Division Bench of

the High Court of Calcutta in MAT 69/2024 with CAN 1

of 2024 is set aside, restoring the decision of the Single

Bench dated 11.12.2023.

The appeal is accordingly allowed.

Page 38 of 39 Pending application (s) if any, stands disposed of.

……………………………J. (SANJAY KAROL)

….…………….…………………………J. (NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH)

NEW DELHI;

APRIL 07, 2026.

Page 39 of 39