Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Ori) 538

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K. Panigrahi, J.
Chinmaya Pasayat & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Others - Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.459 of 2016 along with WP(C) Nos.22914 of 2015, 22915 of 2015, 23061 of 2015, 23063 of 2015, 568 of 2016, 6592 of 2016, 15241 of 2016 and 18652 of 2016
Decided On : 17-12-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Biswajeet Nayak, Adv., Ms. Deepali Mahapatra, Adv., Mr. L. N. Patel, Adv., Mr. Biswabihari Mohanty, Adv., Mr. Sohan Mishra, Adv., Mr.S. K. Nanda, Adv., Mr. S. K. Ojha, Adv., Mr. D.P. Dhalsamant, Adv., Mr. P. K. Panda, Adv.
For the Opposite Party : Mr. K.M. Nataraj, Ld. Addl. Solicitor General of India along with Mr. Somyajit Pani, Mr. S. D. Das, Sr. Adv. Along with associates Mr. B. S. Raiguru, CGC

Reservation policies must not exceed 50% of total vacancies and should be applied in alignment with horizontal and vertical reservation principles without creating inequalities.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Reservation - Selection process for Security Guard post - Petitioners challenged the unlawful 24.5% reservation for Ex-Servicemen leading to total exceeding 50% and improper application of horizontal reservation principles. (Para 20)

(B) Employment - Adherence to recruitment rules - Deviations in the recruitment process can render it impermissible; appointment of ex-servicemen shouldn’t jeopardize others' appointments. (Para 26)

(C) Legal Principles - Total reservation must not exceed 50% as per Indira Sawhney v. Union of India. (Para 8)

Facts of the case:
Petitioners qualified for the Security Guard post selection but were excluded from the select list due to alleged incorrect implementation of reservation policies concerning Ex-Servicemen. (Paras 3-5)

Findings of Court:
Recruitment process allowed for reconsideration without removing incorrectly appointed ex-servicemen, who are to be regularized under supernumerary posts. (Paras 27-29)

Issues: Proper application of Ex-Servicemen reservation and its compliance with overarching reservation structures; legality of total reservation exceeding the 50% ceiling. (Paras 7-8)

Ratio Decidendi: Horizontal reservations must cross-cut vertical reservations without disturbing overall allocation. Proper corrections to recruitment processes do not disadvantage those already appointed wrongly. (Paras 16-20)

Result: Writ Petitions allowed; fresh recruitment exercise mandated.

Table of Content
1. introduction and overview of case facts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. petitioners argue unlawful reservation for ex-servicemen. (Para 4)
3. court's initial observations about case context. (Para 6 , 7)
4. explanation of horizontal versus vertical reservation. (Para 8 , 9)
5. procedure for applying horizontal and vertical reservations. (Para 10 , 11)
6. clarification on proper application of ex-servicemen reservation. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
7. discussion on merit-based placement. (Para 17 , 18)
8. court addresses timing and implications of recruitment process. (Para 19 , 20 , 21)
9. court examines prior judgments for guidance. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
10. conclusion regarding corrective actions. (Para 25)
11. final directives and resolution of writ petitions. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30)

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. Since common question of facts and law are involved in all the above-mentioned Writ Petitions, the same were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. However, this Court felt it apposite to deal with the W.P.(C) No.459 of 2016 as the leading case for proper adjudication of all these cases.

2. In W.P.(C) No.459 of 2016, the petitioners are challenging the selection process to the post of Security Guard T&S Grade G of Mahanadi Coalfields Limited.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) A notice of employment for the position of Security Guard T&S Grade G was issued by Mahanadi Coalfields Limited vide an advertisement dated 19.02.2014, for 303 vacancies. Of these, 158 posts were allocated to the General category, while 145 posts were reserved, in accordance with the State Quota outlined in the Office Memorandum dated 05.07.2005 and the guidelines issued on 29.01.2023 by the Department of Personnel and Training, with the reservation as follows: 16% for Scheduled Castes (SC), 22% for Scheduled Tribes (ST), and 12% for Other Backward Classes (OBC). Therefore, the seats reserved were as follows: 33 posts for Scheduled Castes (SC), 66 posts for Scheduled Tribes (ST), and 36 posts for Other Backward Classes (OBC).

(ii) Advertisements for the Security Guard T&S Grade G post were also published in different newspapers, dated 19.02.2014, with a note that reservation for SC, ST, OBC, Physically Handicapped, and Ex- Servicemen would apply as per the rules and guidelines of the Government of India.

(iii) The eligibility criteria for the post were fixed as Indian nationals who are Ex-Army/Ex-BSF personnel, NCC/A certificate holders, or Sportsman of All India repute, with Matriculation or an equivalent qualification from a recognized Board.

(iv) A written test was conducted, followed by an interview, and a select list was published.

(v) The petitioners, who are NCC/A certificate holders and met the eligibility criteria, qualified the written test but did not find their names on the select list after the interview.

(vi) The select list contained a ’Note No. 2,’ which stated that reservation for Ex-Servicemen had been applied in accordance with the Government of India guidelines and purportedly included a 24.5% reservation.

(vii) Aggrieved by the provision of reservation to Ex-Servicemen, which was allegedly contrary to the advertisement dated 19.02.2014 and resulted in the total reservation exceeding 50%, the petitioners have approached this Court in the present writ petition.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioners earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) The petitioners submitted that the reservation for Ex-Servicemen granted by Mahanadi Coalfields Limited was unlawful, as the employment notice dated 19.02.2014 did not specify any such reservation. While the notice explicitly outlined reservations for candidates belonging to SC, ST, and OBC categories, no provision was made for Ex-Servicemen. The recruitment process must strictly adhere to the terms of the advertisement, and any deviation therefrom