SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2021 Supreme(Bom) 827

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Dipankar Datta, G. S. Kulkarni, JJ.
Lata Shyamrao Sangolkar - Appellant
Versus
The State Of Maharashtra - Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2002 of 2019
Decided On : 04-03-2021

Advocates appeared:
Mr.Laxman S. Deshmukh, for the Appellant / Mr. A.A.Kumbhakoni-Advocate, Mr.P.P.Kakade-Government, Mr.M.M.Pable-Agp, for the Respondent.

Candidates belonging to reserved categories with horizontal reservation are entitled to be selected on the basis of their own merit, and their selection cannot be counted against the quota reserved for their category.

Headnote:

Writ Petition - Reservation - Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal - OBC - Jailor-Grade II - 18th February 2009 - 200 marks - Saurav Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. - Charushila vs. State of Maharashtra - Mr. Kumbhakoni - Appointment as Jailor - Grade II

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a woman belonging to the OBC category, challenged the non-appointment as Jailor-Grade II despite securing a higher overall merit position than women candidates from the 'unreserved' category. The controversy was whether she was entitled to be accommodated in the 'unreserved' category based on her meritorious performance.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the petitioner, being a woman from the OBC category, was entitled to appointment in the 'unreserved' category vacancies based on her merit, as per the decision in Saurav Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. The impugned judgment and order of the Tribunal was set aside, and the writ petition was allowed with specific directions for the petitioner's appointment as Jailor - Grade II.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, belonging to the OBC category, was entitled to be appointed in the 'unreserved' category vacancies based on her meritorious performance.

Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the legal principle that if a candidate belonging to a reserved category is entitled to be selected on the basis of their own merit, their selection cannot be counted against the quota reserved for the category to which they belong. This principle was extended to individuals selected based on their own merit but belonging to reserved categories with horizontal reservation.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the petitioner was granted specific directions for her appointment as Jailor - Grade II, with additional provisions for confirmation in service and notional appointment.

JUDGMENT

1. A judgment and order dated 23rd January 2019 passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (hereafter "the Tribunal", for short) dismissing Original Application No. 1100 of 2012 is under challenge in this writ petition at the instance of the unsuccessful original applicant (hereafter "the petitioner" for short).

2. The petitioner is 'a woman' belonging to "Other Backward Class" (hereafter "OBC", for short) category. Her grievance is that though in the selection process for recruitment as "Jailor-Grade II" she secured quite a high score and resultantly was placed in the overall merit position higher than women candidates from the 'unreserved' or 'open' category, she has not been appointed; whereas, women candidates belonging to 'open' category (the respondents 2 to 7) have been appointed, though they scored lesser marks than the petitioner and thereby were lower in the order of merit than the petitioner.

3. On 18th February 2009, an advertisement was published to fill in vacancies on the post of "Jailor-Grade II". Number of vacancies advertised was 100, out of which 14 vacancies were reserved for the OBC category. Considering the total vacancies reserved for various categories, 52 vacancies remained for the 'unreserved' or 'open' category.

4. Horizontal reservation for women candidates was provided, without compartmentalization and as and by way of overall reservations, to the extent of 30%. Resultantly, 4 vacancies out of 14 vacancies, stood reserved for women belonging to the OBC category and 16 vacancies remained for women belonging to the 'unreserved' or 'open' category.

5. The selection process comprised of total 200 marks, which were divided as under:

(a) 100 marks - for written examination

(b) 80 marks - for physical

(c) 20 marks - for interview

_________

200 marks Total

6. On 9th November 2012, final select list was prepared and it was published on 19th November 2012.

7. The petitioner secured a total of 112.75 marks out of 200 marks and was placed at S1. No. 206 in the overall merit list; whereas, the respondents 2 to 7 secured marks in the range of 95 to 110 out of 200 marks and were placed at S1. No. 213 onwards in the overall merit list. Since the 4 vacancies reserved for women belonging to the OBC category were filled up by offering appointments to women candidates who scored more marks than the petitioner, there was no berth left for her appointment in the OBC category.

8. The controversy that we are tasked to resolve is, whether the petitioner belonging to the OBC category and being 'a woman' was entitled to be accommodated in any of the 16 vacancies for women belonging to the 'unreserved' or 'open' category on merit, having failed to secure a berth in any of the 4 vacancies reserved for OBC category (women). In other words, whether by dint of her meritorious performance, the petitioner ought to have been extended the benefit of appointment in the 'unreserved' or 'open' category ahead of the respondents 2 to 7.

9. Although on the last occasion, i.e. 18th February 2021, initially we were disinclined to entertain the writ petition, Mr. Deshmukh, learned advocate for the petitioner, persevered in his efforts to impress us that the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner were indeed sound and that she was entitled to relief in terms of the decision of the Supreme Court of recent origin in Saurav Yadav & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 1034.

10. Law is well settled that if a candidate belonging to a reserved category is entitled to be selected on the basis of his own merit, his selection cannot be counted against the quota reserved for the category for vertical reservation to which he belongs. The question as to whether such legal position would also apply to individuals selected on the basis of their own merit but belonging to reserved categories for which horizontal reservation has been provided, came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Saurav Yadav

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top