IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, SUSHIL KUKREJA, JJ.
Prashant Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corp. - Respondent
CWPOA No. 5260 of 2020
Decided On : 26-04-2024
Reservation - Employment - Indira Sawhney & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., 1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 217, R.K. Sabarwal vs. State of Punjab 1992 (2) SCC 745, Pramod Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2021) 4 SCC 680
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought to fill up the vacancies of Transport Multi Purpose Assistants as per the advertised quota for the General Category, alleging that candidates from other categories had occupied the seats meant for the general category.
Finding of the Court:
The court considered the instructions issued by the State Government, the principle of horizontal reservation, and the judgments in Indira Sawhney & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., R.K. Sabarwal vs. State of Punjab, and Pramod Kumar Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. The court held that candidates from reserved categories, based on their own merit, could compete with general category candidates and be selected in the general category without being counted against the reserved quota.
Issues: The main issue was whether candidates from reserved categories could occupy seats meant for the general category, and the interpretation of the principle of horizontal reservation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the principle that candidates from reserved categories, based on their own merit, could be selected in the general category without being counted against the reserved quota. The court also emphasized the strict adherence to the prescribed percentage of reservations for backward classes.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, citing the well-settled legal position and the application of the principle of reservation.
JUDGMENT :
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
The instant petition has been filed for grant of the following substantive relief:-
2. The respondent issued an advertisement dated 03.08.2017 thereby inviting applications of qualified candidates for filling up for 715 posts of Transport Multi Purpose Assistant (TMPA) of General Category, out of which 104 were to be filled up from General BPL, 13 from General FF, 117 from General Ex serviceman and 39 from sports.
3. The petitioner appeared in the written test and was shortlisted for valuation of documents. The petitioner secured 74 marks in the written test and 4.38 marks in the evaluation and in this way he secured 78.38 marks.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that the seats of General Category have not been filled up as per the quota set out in the advertisement, rather the candidates belonging to other categories have occupied the seats meant for general category leaving the general category candidates in lurch. It is further averred that as against the advertised seats of 286 for SC Category, as many as 333 candidates have been selected. Likewise, for 163 post of OBC (General) nearly 286 candidates have been recruited, whereas for the general category, only 391 seats have been filled up against the allocated quota of 715 posts in total.
5. The respondent in its reply has averred that the candidates, who otherwise belonged to SC and OBC categories have their own merit being selected and are required to be considered as candidates in the general category in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Indira Sawhney & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors., 1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 217, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held “in this connection, it is well to remember that the reservation under Article 16(4) do not operate like a communal reservation. It may well happen that the members belonging to, say Scheduled Caste get selected in the open competition field on the basis of their own merit; they will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes; they will be treated as open competition candidates.”
6. When the matter came up before the Coordinate Bench on 10.11.2023, the Court passed the following order:-
Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that ground taken in the petition in para 6 (f) is specific in nature, whereas vague reply has been filed thereto and, therefore, it has to be considered that respondent has no ground to repel the ground taken in the said para.
Faced with aforesaid situation, learned counsel for the respondent-Corporation seeks one opportunity to file supplementary affidavit to place on record specific response to the aforesaid para by giving specific reply. Accepting his prayer, two weeks time, as prayed, is granted.”
7. Pursuant to the aforesaid directions, the respondent has filed supplementary affidavit, wherein the break-up of the following different categories has been given as under:-
| Sr. No. | Category | No. of advertised posts |
| 1. | General | 442 |
| 2. | General BPL | 104 |
| 3. | General FF | 13 |
| 4. | General Ex. Man | 117 |
| 5. | General Sportsman | 39 |
|
| Total | 715 |
8. It is averred that total 442 posts were to be filled up against open category, which were filled up as per instructions contained in para-4 of the Notification No. PER (AP) C-F-2/2001, dated 12.11.2014, which reads as under:-
Candidates from reserved categories, based on their own merit, can be selected in the general category without being counted against the reserved quota, and the prescribed percentage of reservations ....
Candidates from reserved categories, if selected on the basis of their own merit, cannot be counted against the quota for their vertical reservation categories. The application of horizontal reservat....
Reservation policies in public employment must prioritize merit; candidates from reserved categories who qualify for general positions based on merit are to be treated as general category candidates.
The court clarified the distinction between horizontal and vertical reservations and ruled that candidates applying from the open category cannot be denied placement based solely on their reserved ca....
Reserved category candidates who score above the general category cut-off must be treated as general candidates, ensuring merit prevails in recruitment processes as mandated by the Constitution.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.