Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a female belonging to the Scheduled Caste, applied for the post of Pharmacist in response to an advertisement by Zilla Parishad, Beed, which included 10 open category posts with horizontal reservation for women (3 posts). She secured 122 marks in the examination, which was higher than the marks of the two selected female candidates (respondent nos.4 and 5, who scored 120 and 110 marks respectively), yet her name was not included in the final select list for the open female category. She filed a writ petition seeking quashment of the select list to the extent it included these respondents and a direction to appoint her against one of the horizontally reserved posts. The core legal issue was whether a candidate who applied from a reserved category could claim selection against a horizontally reserved post for open female category solely on the basis of higher marks. The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, arguing that meritorious reserved candidates could be appointed in open category without affecting the reservation quota. The respondents contended that the reservation for women was horizontal, governed by different principles, and that the petitioner, having applied from the Scheduled Caste category, could not claim the benefit of a special reservation meant for open category women. They also relied on Rajesh Kumar Daria and Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. The High Court analyzed the distinction between vertical and horizontal reservations as expounded in the cited precedents. It noted that while in vertical (social) reservations, a meritorious reserved category candidate selected on her own merit in the open competition does not count against the reserved quota, this rule is inapplicable to horizontal (special) reservations. For horizontal reservations, the candidate must belong to the specific category for which the reservation is provided. Accordingly, the court held that the petitioner, who had applied as a Scheduled Caste candidate, could not claim the horizontal reservation for open women merely on the basis of higher marks. The court found no infirmity in the select list and dismissed the writ petition, discharging the rule with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Reservation - Horizontal vs Vertical Reservation - Constitution of India, Articles 16(1), 16(4), 15(3) - The distinction between vertical social reservations (SC/ST/OBC) and horizontal special reservations (women, disabled) is fundamental; a meritorious reserved category candidate can be appointed in open category without counting against the reserved quota only for vertical reservations; this principle does not extend to horizontal reservations. Held, writ petition dismissed; petitioner, a scheduled caste female with higher marks, could not claim appointment against a horizontally reserved post for open women category as she had applied from reserved category and the principle of vertical reservation is inapplicable (Paras 9, 14-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a candidate who applied from a reserved category (Scheduled Caste) can claim selection on posts horizontally reserved for open female category on the basis of higher marks among female candidates
Final Decision
The petition was found devoid of substance and was dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- The distinction between vertical (social) reservations under Article 16(4) and horizontal (special) reservations under Articles 16(1) and 15(3)
- a meritorious reserved category candidate selected in open competition is not counted against the reserved quota in vertical reservations
- but this principle does not apply to horizontal reservations
- candidates seeking benefit of horizontal reservation must belong to that category
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (03) 10
WRIT PETITION NO.3929 OF 2015
Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh for Petitioner; Mr. S.B. Yawalkar, AGP for Respondent No.1; Mr. A.D. Aghav for Respondent Nos.2 & 3; Mr. P.N. Sonpethkar for Respondent No.4; Mr. D.J. Choudhari for Respondent No.5
1) The President, District Selection Committee/ Collector, Beed, Dist. Beed. 2) The Member, District Selection Committee/ Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Beed. District Beed. 3) The Member-Secretary, District Selection Committee/ Deputy Chief Executive Officer(General) Zilla Parishad, Beed. District Beed. 4) Kranti Ganesh Khanapurkar 5) Sulbha Raosaheb Fukate
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a select list for pharmacist posts and claiming appointment based on merit.
Remedy Sought
Quashment of select list to the extent it included respondent nos.4 and 5, and direction to appoint the petitioner to a pharmacist post in the open female category.
Filing Reason
The petitioner secured 122 marks, higher than the selected female candidates (respondent nos.4 and 5 with 120 and 110 marks), but was not included in the select list for open female category posts.
Previous Decisions
The District Selection Committee prepared a final select list on 17.03.2015, excluding the petitioner. No prior adjudication was made.
Issues
Whether a candidate who applied from a reserved category (Scheduled Caste) can claim selection on a post horizontally reserved for open female category on the basis of higher marks among female candidates
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner contended that having secured the second highest marks among female candidates, she should have been selected under the open female category in terms of the principle that meritorious reserved candidates can compete in open category without affecting the reserved quota, relying on Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission.
Respondents argued that the reservation for women in the open category is a horizontal (special) reservation, and the principle applicable to vertical (social) reservations does not apply; the petitioner applied from reserved category and cannot claim horizontal reservation benefits; reliance was placed on the same Rajesh Kumar Daria case and Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., as well as a Government Circular dated 13.08.2014.
Ratio Decidendi
The distinction between vertical and horizontal reservations is fundamental. While meritorious reserved category candidates selected in open competition are not counted against the reserved quota for vertical reservations, this principle does not extend to horizontal reservations. A candidate cannot claim a post horizontally reserved for women in the open category solely on the basis of higher marks if she applied from a reserved category and the horizontal reservation is meant for that specific category. The law laid down in Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. is applied.
Judgment Excerpts
Whether the petitioner, who has applied for the post of pharmacist from the reserved category, more particularly scheduled caste, can claim her selection on one of the three(3) posts horizontally reserved for open Female category on the basis that amongst the female candidates, she has secured second highest marks.?
But the aforesaid principle applicable to vertical (social) reservations will not apply to horizontal (special) reservations. Where a special reservation for women is provided within the social reservation for Scheduled Castes, the proper procedure is first to fill up the quota for scheduled castes in order of merit and then find out the number of candidates among them who belong to the special reservation group of 'Scheduled Castes-Women'.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. On 10 April 2014, the court granted ad interim relief restraining issuance of appointment orders to respondent nos.4 and 5 against the open female category. The matter was heard, and judgment was reserved on 5 February 2016, and pronounced on 30 March 2016.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 15(3), Article 16(1), Article 16(4), Article 226
