Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard a batch of civil appeals arising from a common judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 29.04.2020 concerning the selection of Assistant Professors by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC). The selection process was initiated through an advertisement dated 12.12.2017. After the initial select list was challenged, a revised select list was published between 20.08.2019 and 03.10.2019. The core legal issue was whether OBC (Female) candidates who scored higher marks than General Category women candidates could be allotted unreserved female (UNRF) seats under the horizontal reservation for women. The High Court had held that the revised select list was incorrect and directed that OBC (Female) candidates be adjusted against UNRF seats based on merit. The Supreme Court, however, reversed this decision, clarifying the distinction between vertical reservation (for SC, ST, OBC) and horizontal reservation (for women). It held that horizontal reservation operates within each vertical category, and reserved-category candidates cannot be shifted to unreserved seats. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment and directed that the selection process be re-examined in accordance with the correct legal principles.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Horizontal Reservation - Interplay with Vertical Reservation - OBC Female Candidates and Unreserved Female Seats - The issue was whether OBC (Female) candidates who scored higher marks than General Category women candidates could be allotted unreserved female (UNRF) seats in the selection of Assistant Professors by MPPSC. The Supreme Court held that horizontal reservation for women operates within each vertical category, and reserved-category candidates cannot be shifted to unreserved seats merely on the basis of higher merit. The High Court's direction to adjust OBC (Female) candidates against UNRF seats was set aside. (Paras 3-5, 25, 39)
B) Service Law - Reservation - Vertical and Horizontal Reservation - Allocation of Seats - The Court examined the distinction between vertical reservation (for SC, ST, OBC) and horizontal reservation (for women). It held that horizontal reservation cuts across vertical categories, and candidates from reserved categories can only be considered for horizontal reservation within their own vertical category. The revised select list that allotted 10 out of 12 UNRF seats to OBC (Female) candidates was found to be legally erroneous. (Paras 25, 39)
C) Service Law - Selection Process - Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission - Assistant Professor Recruitment - The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh and others, setting aside the High Court's judgment dated 29.04.2020. The Court directed that the selection process be re-examined in accordance with the correct legal principles regarding horizontal and vertical reservation. (Paras 1-2, 5.1, 39)
Issue of Consideration
Whether OBC (Female) candidates who scored more marks than General Category women candidates are entitled to occupy unreserved female (UNRF) seats in horizontal reservation, and whether reserved-category candidates scoring higher marks than General Category candidates can be adjusted against unreserved seats.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment dated 29.04.2020, and directed that the selection process be re-examined in accordance with the correct legal principles regarding horizontal and vertical reservation.
Law Points
- Horizontal reservation
- vertical reservation
- inter se merit
- OBC female candidates
- unreserved female seats
- Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission
- Assistant Professor selection
Case Details
2021 LawText (SC) (12) 32
Civil Appeal No.7781 of 2021 (arising out of SLP (Civil) No.7811 of 2020) and connected appeals
Sadhana Singh Dangi & Others; State of Madhya Pradesh; Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission; Ajay Kumar Savita & Others; Deepti Lilhare; Meena Rathore; Kusumlata Rajak; Anjna Bhatewara; Kamlesh Kumar
Pinki Asati & Others; Pranjali Kekre & Another; Neha Samdariya & Another; Prabha Ghure & Another; Ritu Dubey & Another; Pramila & Others; Praneeta Bhatele & Others; Sonu Pandey & Another; Deepa Shrivastava & Another; Kajal Saxena & Another; Kusumlata Rajak & Others; Archana Namdeo & Another; Neeloffer Khan & Others; Deepti Gupta & Others; Anu Thakur & Others; Rashmi Sharma & Others; Sapna Devi & Another; Faiza Qureshi & Another; State of Madhya Pradesh & Others; Shanti Sharma & Another; Tanu Shree & Others; Jyoti Choubey & Others; State of Madhya Pradesh & Others; Garima Singh Baghel & Others; Prachi Tiwari & Others; Amrita Dwivedi & Another; Sandhya Mishra (Tiwari) & Others; Priyanka Dwivedi & Another; Anupama Agnihotri & Others; State of Madhya Pradesh & Others; Pinki Asati & Others; State of Madhya Pradesh & Others; State of Madhya Pradesh & Others; Anju Shukla & Others; Laxmi Tiwari & Another; Arti Upadhyay & Others; Jyoti Gajbhiye & Others; Rakhi Dwivedi & Others; Anjana Bhatewara & Others; Alaknanda Tripathi & Others; Bhavana Singh Bhadoriya & Another; Farhat Khan & Others; Lalima Vijayvargia & Others; Pragya Dubey & Another; Dr. Ekta Jain & Another; Rashmi Jha & Others; Shalini Shukla & Others; Gurjeet Kaur Chawla & Others; State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeals challenging the High Court's judgment in writ petitions concerning the selection of Assistant Professors by MPPSC.
Remedy Sought
The appellants (State of Madhya Pradesh, MPPSC, and certain candidates) sought to set aside the High Court's order directing adjustment of OBC (Female) candidates against unreserved female seats.
Filing Reason
The High Court held that OBC (Female) candidates who scored higher marks than General Category women candidates should be allotted unreserved female seats, which the appellants contended was legally incorrect.
Previous Decisions
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh passed the judgment dated 29.04.2020 in Writ Petition No.19126 of 2019 and connected matters, which was challenged in these appeals.
Issues
Whether OBC (Female) candidates who scored more marks than General Category women candidates are entitled to occupy unreserved female (UNRF) seats in horizontal reservation.
Whether reserved-category candidates scoring higher marks than General Category candidates can be adjusted against unreserved seats.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellants argued that horizontal reservation for women operates within each vertical category, and reserved-category candidates cannot be shifted to unreserved seats.
The respondents contended that merit should prevail and OBC (Female) candidates with higher marks should be allotted unreserved female seats.
Ratio Decidendi
Horizontal reservation for women operates within each vertical category (SC, ST, OBC, General). Reserved-category candidates cannot be shifted to unreserved seats merely on the basis of higher merit. The allocation of seats must respect the compartmentalization of vertical and horizontal reservations.
Judgment Excerpts
Whether the OBC (Female) who scored more marks than the General Category woman candidates would secure a seat/post in un-reserved female category; and whether in a case of horizontal reservation, reserved-category candidates scoring higher marks than General Category candidates would be entitled to get a seat/post of un-reserved categories?
In the selection process of Assistant Professors of the year 2017, it emerges from the facts that not only in the subject of Geography, but in all subjects the merit of OBC (female) category was overflowing.
Procedural History
The MPPSC issued an advertisement on 12.12.2017 for Assistant Professor posts. After selection, a revised select list was published between 20.08.2019 and 03.10.2019. This was challenged in the High Court, which passed the judgment dated 29.04.2020. The present appeals were filed against that judgment.
Acts & Sections
- Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC) Rules:
