Supreme Court Upholds High Court's Decision on Reservation in Selection Process — Clarifies Horizontal Reservation Principles.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court addressed appeals challenging the High Court's judgment regarding the selection process for Assistant Professors by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC). The controversy arose from the selection process initiated by an advertisement issued on 12.12.2017, leading to a revised Select List that was contested in Writ Petition No. 19126 of 2019. The High Court found that the revised list improperly allocated seats, allowing OBC (Female) candidates to occupy unreserved female seats based on merit, which contradicted the principles of horizontal reservation. The court emphasized that while candidates from reserved categories could be selected based on merit for unreserved positions, horizontal reservations must be strictly compartmentalized. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, rejecting the second view adopted by the Madhya Pradesh High Court and affirming the first view held by other High Courts, which allowed for merit-based selection within the confines of reservation categories. The court directed the authorities to prepare a fresh Select List in compliance with the established legal principles, ensuring that candidates from reserved categories are allocated seats within their respective categories. The decision reinforced the importance of maintaining the integrity of reservation policies while upholding meritocracy in public employment.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Reservation Principles - Horizontal vs. Vertical Reservation - Section 4(4) of the 1994 Act, Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules - The court clarified that while vertical reservation allows migration based on merit, horizontal reservation is compartmentalized and does not permit such migration. The High Court's ruling was upheld, emphasizing that OBC (Female) candidates must be allotted seats in their own category despite their merit position in the overall list. Held that the revised Select List was quashed and a fresh list must be prepared in accordance with the law (Paras 5-40).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether OBC (Female) candidates scoring higher marks than General Category candidates can secure seats in the unreserved female category under horizontal reservation.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, quashing the revised Select List and directing the preparation of a fresh list in accordance with the principles of horizontal reservation.

Law Points

  • Reservation principles
  • horizontal reservation
  • vertical reservation
  • merit list allocation
  • OBC category rights
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2021 LawText (SC) (12) 169

Civil Appeal No.7781 of 2021

2021-04-29

Sadhana Singh Dangi & Others, State of Madhya Pradesh

Pinki Asati & Others, Pranjali Kekre & Another, Neha Samdariya & Another, Prabha Ghure & Another, Ritu Dubey & Another, Pramilia & 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, Ajay Kumar Savita & Others, Shanti Sharma & Another, Tanu Shree & Others, Jyoti Choubey & Others, Deepti Lilhare, Garima Singh Baghel & Others, Prachi Tiwari & Others, Amrita Dwivedi & Another, Sandhya Mishra (Tiwari) & Others, Priyanka Dwivedi & Another, Anupama Agnihotri & Others, Anjana Bhatewara & Others, Alaknanda Tripathi & Others, Bhavana Singh Bhadoriya & Another, Farhat Khan & Others, Pragya Dubey & Another, Dr. Ekta Jain & Another.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Challenge to the selection process for Assistant Professors by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission.

Remedy Sought

Candidates sought to uphold the revised Select List and secure their positions.

Filing Reason

Dispute over the allocation of seats in the selection process based on merit and reservation categories.

Previous Decisions

The High Court quashed the revised Select List and directed a fresh list to be prepared.

Issues

Whether OBC (Female) candidates can secure seats in the unreserved female category based on merit. The applicability of horizontal versus vertical reservation principles.

Submissions/Arguments

Appellants argued for the acceptance of the revised Select List based on merit. Respondents contended that horizontal reservation principles restrict allocation to respective categories.

Ratio Decidendi

The court clarified that while vertical reservation allows migration based on merit, horizontal reservation is compartmentalized and does not permit such migration, ensuring that candidates from reserved categories are allocated seats within their respective categories.

Judgment Excerpts

The revised Select List did not represent the correct position in law and was required to be modified. A candidate not falling in the merit list of unreserved category – UNRF cannot be brought from any other candidates belonging to OBC(F), SC(F) and ST(F) in order to accommodate against the horizontal quota of UNRF.

Procedural History

The appeals arose from the High Court's judgment dated 29.04.2020 in Writ Petition No.19126 of 2019, challenging the selection process conducted by the MPPSC.

Acts & Sections

  • Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (Reservation for Women) Rules: Rule 3
  • Madhya Pradesh Act for Reservation in Services: Section 4(4)
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Enhanced Compensation in Motor Accident Claim — Ex Gratia Payment Not Deductible. High Court's award of Rs. 48,00,000 with 7.5% interest held just; no interference required.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Quashes One-Time Spectrum Charge on Cellular Operators for Spectrum Beyond 6.2 MHz, Holding No Statutory Power Under Telegraph Act, 1885 to Impose Retrospective Charges