Case Note & Summary
The judgment from the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) addressed a group of writ petitions concerning the proper method for filling vacancies under horizontal reservation in the Maharashtra state civil services. The recruitment process was conducted by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) for posts including Deputy Collector, DSP, and others. The petitioners in Writ Petition No.4159 of 2018 were six women candidates who belonged to reserved categories (SC/ST/OBC) but had applied as general category candidates without claiming any reservation benefits. They challenged a Government Circular dated 13.08.2014 and clause 19 of the call letters, which stated that for filling open horizontally reserved posts (like those for women), selection should first be made from the general merit list, implying that reserved category candidates might be excluded even if they had qualified on merit. The MPSC defended the circular, relying on an earlier circular of 1999 based on the Supreme Court's decision in Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., and argued that only non-reserved category candidates could be considered for open horizontally reserved seats. A communication dated 26.07.2017 from the Additional Chief Secretary reinforced that even if a reserved category female candidate applied as an open category candidate, her name would not be recommended for an open category seat. The petitioners contended this was unconstitutional and contrary to the principle of merit-based selection under Article 16(1). In opposing arguments, Writ Petition No.6578 of 2018 was filed by open category candidates supporting the MPSC's stand, asserting that compartmentalised horizontal reservation prohibits migration from one category to another. Writ Petition No.10837 of 2018 challenged the MPSC's Standing Order No.06/2014 dated 23.09.2014, particularly clause 6, which barred backward class candidates not claiming reservation from claiming posts under open horizontal reservation. The core legal issues before the court included the correct methodology for filling horizontal reservation vacancies, whether the rule of migration/shifting applies and to what extent, and the validity of the impugned circular and standing order. The case was reserved for judgment on 11.07.2019 and pronounced on 08.08.2019. The provided text does not include the court's final decision or ratio.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Article 16(1) - Horizontal Reservation - Methodology - Constitution of India, Article 16(1) - The core issue raised is the correct methodology for filling horizontal reservation vacancies in public employment, particularly whether reserved category candidates who apply as open/general category can be considered for open horizontally reserved posts on merit, or whether such posts are reserved only for non-reserved category candidates. The petitioners challenge the Government Circular dated 13.08.2014 and MPSC Standing Order No.06/2014 that exclude them, while the State defends the policy citing Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (1995) 5 SCC 173 (Paras 1-5).
B) Service Law - Reservation - Migration/Shifting Rule - Applicability - Constitution of India, Article 16(1) - Another question is whether the rule of migration or shifting applies when filling horizontal reservation quotas, and whether compartmentalisation prohibits shifting of reserved category candidates to unreserved seats even when they do not claim reservation benefits and compete on merit. The court is called upon to interpret the extent of permissible migration (Paras 1, 7).
C) Constitutional Validity - Government Circular dated 13.08.2014 and Standing Order No.06/2014 - Challenge - Constitution of India, Article 16(1) - The petitioners contend that the circular and standing order are unconstitutional as they prevent backward class candidates who do not claim any reservation benefit from competing for open horizontal reservation posts, allegedly violating the principle of merit-based selection under Article 16(1). The respondents argue that compartmentalised horizontal reservation does not permit such crossover (Paras 2, 8).
Issue of Consideration
Methodology of filling vacancies for horizontal reservation under Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India and the applicability of the rule of migration/shifting.
Law Points
- horizontal reservation methodology
- migration rule
- merit-based selection
- non-discrimination
- compartmentalised reservation
- open category vs. reserved category
- Article 16(1) interpretation
Case Details
2019 LawText (BOM) (08) 19
WRIT PETITION NO.4159 OF 2018 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.6578 OF 2018, WRIT PETITION NO.10837 OF 2018, WRIT PETITION NO.10578 OF 2018
R.M. Borde, Mangesh S. Patil
S.S. Thombre for petitioners in WP 4159; Ashutosh Kumbhakoni, Advocate General with A.B. Girase, Government Pleader and Akshay Shinde for Respondent No.1; M.B. Kolpe for Respondent No.2; P.R. Katneshwar for petitioner in WP 6578; Avinash S. Deshmukh for intervener; Hrishikesh A. Joshi for intervener; Ajay U. Chandel and Sandeep Dere for intervener; Dr. Sudhakar E. Avhad with S.D. Munde, Abhijeet Awhad, Vijay Dhakane and Chetan R. Nagare for petitioner in WP 10837
Charushila d/o Tukaram Chaudhari and others (WP 4159/2018); Shilpa Sahebrao Kadam and others (WP 6578/2018); Ms. Alaka Shyamsunder Mundhe (WP 10837/2018); Mangeshrao Dadasaheb Dighe and others (WP 10578/2018)
The State of Maharashtra through Principal Secretary, General Administration Department and Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Public interest writ petitions challenging the methodology for filling horizontal reservation vacancies and the validity of a government circular and MPSC standing order that allegedly restrict reserved category candidates from competing for open category seats.
Remedy Sought
The petitioners in the lead petition (WP 4159/2018) sought to quash the Government Circular dated 13.08.2014 and the clause in their call letters, and to be considered for unreserved vacancies on merit despite belonging to reserved categories but not claiming reservation benefits. The petitioners in WP 10837/2018 challenged the constitutional validity of Standing Order No.06/2014.
Filing Reason
The petitioners apprehended that the impugned circular and standing order would prevent them from being considered for general/open horizontally reserved posts even if they qualified on merit, which they argued violated Article 16(1) of the Constitution.
Previous Decisions
The circulars were based on the Supreme Court judgment in Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (1995) 5 SCC 173. No other prior judicial decisions are mentioned in the provided text.
Issues
What is the correct methodology for filling vacancies prescribed for horizontal reservation flowing from Article 16(1) of the Constitution?
Whether the rule of migration/shifting can be applied and to what extent in the context of horizontal reservation?
Is the Government Circular dated 13.08.2014 and Standing Order No.06/2014 legally valid insofar as they prevent reserved category candidates who apply as general category from being considered for open horizontally reserved posts?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners in WP 4159/2018: They belong to reserved categories but applied as general category candidates without claiming reservation benefits; they argued that the impugned circular and call letter clause would arbitrarily exclude them from unreserved vacancies despite merit, violating constitutional principles.
Respondents (State and MPSC): Relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Anil Kumar Gupta and the earlier 1999 circular; contended that only open (non-reserved) category candidates can be considered for open horizontally reserved posts, and that reserved category candidates, even if applying as general, cannot be considered for such posts, as per the communication dated 26.07.2017.
Petitioners in WP 6578/2018 (open category candidates): Supported the respondents, arguing that compartmentalised horizontal reservation does not permit migration from one social category to another.
Petitioners in WP 10837/2018: Challenged Standing Order No.06/2014, clause 6, as unconstitutional for barring backward class candidates not claiming reservation from open horizontal reservation benefits.
Judgment Excerpts
the question, that arises for consideration, is as regards methodology of filling in the vacancies prescribed for horizontal reservation which flows from Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India. Another question, that would be required to be considered is, as to whether rule of migration/shifting can be applied and to what extent.
The circular dated 16.03.1999 is based on the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. and others , (1995) 5 SCC 173.
According to Respondent – Maharashtra Public Service Commission, in view of the Circular dated 13.08.2014, only the candidates belonging to open (Nonreserved) category can be considered for open horizontally reserved posts meaning thereby, the reserved category candidates cannot be considered for open horizontally reserved post.
a female candidate belonging to any reserved category, even if tenders application form seeking employment as an open category candidate, the name of such candidate shall not be recommended for employment against a open category seat.
the backward class candidates not claiming any benefits available for reserved category, will not be entitled to raise a claim in respect of the posts prescribed for open horizontal reservation category.
Procedural History
The writ petitions were filed in 2018 before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The court heard arguments and reserved judgment on 11.07.2019, and pronounced it on 08.08.2019. The petitioners in the lead matter sought relief against the impugned circular and call letter clause, while other petitions challenged related issues or supported the respondents. Interveners also participated. The matter was reserved for judgment after hearing all sides.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 16(1)
