1. Recruitment dispute regarding the filling of a horizontally reserved vacancy for persons with disabilities within an unreserved category post. (Para 2 , 5 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 356
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KAROL, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
The West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. and Others – Appellants
Versus
Dipendu Biswas and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 10262 of 2025
Decided On : 07-04-2026
Important Points
The principle of merit must prevail in filling unreserved vacancies for Persons with Disabilities, allowing the appointment of meritorious candidates from any reserved category when more qualified than available unreserved candidates.
Subject
Public Law - Administrative Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Recruitment Notification - Filling vacancies for Persons with Disabilities (PWD-LV) - Court determined that qualified UR (PWD-LV) candidates must be prioritized for vacancies, unless unavailable, compatible with merit-based appointment policy. (Paras 3, 44)
(B) Vertical and Horizontal Reservations - The proportions delineated for social and special reservations facilitate mobility across categories; special reservations for PWD-LV candidates apply irrespective of social background. Meritorious candidates from any social category can be appointed to unreserved positions meant for a specific disability. (Paras 21, 30, 40, 46)
Facts of the case:
Appellant contested a recruitment notification issuing a vacancy for UR (PWD-LV) candidates against a candidate from the OBC-A category who was offered the position despite merit discrepancies. The initial dismissive judgment by the Single Bench was reversed by the Division Bench which interpreted the recruitment policy in favor of the UR (PWD-LV) candidate.
Findings of Court:
Division Bench's view was overturned for misconstruing the recruitment notification; it confirmed that merit must guide appointments, prioritizing more meritorious PWD-LV candidates across all categories.
Issues: Whether the interpretation of the recruitment notification mandated preference for qualified UR (PWD-LV) candidates only, and if merit should take precedence over category reservations.
Ratio Decidendi: Unreserved categories must abide by the principle of meritocracy; in the absence of a qualified UR (PWD-LV) candidate, lesser meritorious candidates from reserved categories should not be overlooked.
Result: Appeal allowed; the judgment of the Calcutta High Court was set aside.
(B) Vertical and Horizontal Reservations - The proportions delineated for social and special reservations facilitate mobility across categories; special reservations for PWD-LV candidates apply irrespective of social background. Meritorious candidates from any social category can be appointed to unreserved positions meant for a specific disability. (Paras 21, 30, 40, 46)
Facts of the case:
Appellant contested a recruitment notification issuing a vacancy for UR (PWD-LV) candidates against a candidate from the OBC-A category who was offered the position despite merit discrepancies. The initial dismissive judgment by the Single Bench was reversed by the Division Bench which interpreted the recruitment policy in favor of the UR (PWD-LV) candidate.
Findings of Court:
Division Bench's view was overturned for misconstruing the recruitment notification; it confirmed that merit must guide appointments, prioritizing more meritorious PWD-LV candidates across all categories.
Issues: Whether the interpretation of the recruitment notification mandated preference for qualified UR (PWD-LV) candidates only, and if merit should take precedence over category reservations.
Ratio Decidendi: Unreserved categories must abide by the principle of meritocracy; in the absence of a qualified UR (PWD-LV) candidate, lesser meritorious candidates from reserved categories should not be overlooked.
Result: Appeal allowed; the judgment of the Calcutta High Court was set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Varij Nayan Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Samarendra Nath Biswas, Adv. Mr. Anindo Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Deepti Garg, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Ms. Shraddha Chirania, Adv. Mr. Akshay Luthra, Adv. Mr. Soumya Dutta, AOR Mr. Siddhant Upmanyu, Adv. Ms. Nisstha Balodia, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Kunal Chatterji, AOR Ms. Maitrayee Banerjee, Adv. Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv. Mr. Varij Nayan Mishra, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Samarendra Nath Biswas, Adv. Mr. Anindo Mukherjee, Adv. Ms. Deepti Garg, Adv. Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Kunal Mimani, AOR Ms. Shraddha Chirania, Adv. Mr. Akshay Luthra, Adv. Mr. Soumya Dutta, AOR Mr. Siddhant Upmanyu, Adv. Ms. Nisstha Balodia, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner claimed exclusive right to an unreserved horizontal vacancy when available, whereas the respondent argued that merit-based selection from other social categories should prevail. (Para 11 , 18 )
3. Horizontal reservation vacancies within an unreserved category are open to all eligible candidates across social categories, with merit being the sole criterion for selection. (Para 27 , 28 , 30 , 41 , 44 )
4. A horizontal reservation post within the unreserved category must be filled by the most meritorious candidate, regardless of social category, provided they satisfy the horizontal eligibility criteria. (Para 31 , 35 , 38 , 43 )
5. The appeal is allowed, and the decision of the single judge is restored, permitting the appointment of the more meritorious reserved-category candidate. (Para 50 )
6. Does an unreserved horizontal reservation category allow for candidates from other social categories?
Yes. A horizontal reservation post under the unreserved category is open to all qualified candidates from any social category, provided they meet the specific horizontal eligibility criteria. Merit serves as the sole criterion for selection, and candidates from reserved social categories can migrate to such unreserved-category posts. (Para 27 , 28 , 35 , 38 , 41 )
7. Can a more meritorious reserved-category candidate displace a less meritorious unreserved-category candidate for a horizontally reserved unreserved post?
Yes. If a candidate from a reserved social category possesses higher merit and meets the horizontal reservation requirements, they must be preferred over a less meritorious candidate within the unreserved social category for an unreserved-category horizontal vacancy. (Para 31 , 43 , 44 )
8. Does availing relaxation in eligibility criteria affect candidacy for unreserved posts?
Yes. A reserved-category candidate can only be appointed to an unreserved-category horizontally reserved post if they have not availed any relaxation in the essential eligibility criteria stipulated for that unreserved post. (Para 46 , 47 )
JUDGMENT :
NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, J.
1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.05.2024 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta in MAT 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 [UR (PWD-LV): Unreserved (Persons with Disabilities - Low Vision or Blindness)] 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 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 [OBC-A: Other Backward Class (Most Backward)] as follows:
| S. No. | Name of the post | UR | UR (EC) | UR (Ex.S) | UR (MS) | UR (PWDLV) | UR (PWDHH) | UR (PWD-D) | OBC-A | OBC-A (EC) | OBC-B | OBC-EC |
| 7. | Junior Engineer (Civil) Gr. II | 7 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| SC (EC) | SC (EC) | SC (Ex-S) | ST (PWD-LV) | ST | ST (EC) | Total | ||||||
| 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 for the special category of EC3 [EC: Exempted Category] and 1 (one) post each has been reserved for the special categories of Ex-S4 [Ex-S: Ex-Servicemen], MS5 [MS: Meritorious Sportspersons] 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” not “overall reservations”, to use the terms described in Anil Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. (1995) 5 SCC 173, as referred to in Saurav Yadav vs. State of U.P. (2021) 4 SCC 542, 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 conveni
