The ceiling limit for reservations in recruitment must not exceed 50%, and backlog vacancies should be managed according to established legal principles, ensuring equality of opportunity for all candidates.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioners challenging the advertisement so issued by the Odisha Public Service Commission (in short Commission) vide Advertisement No. 9 of 2024-25 under Annexure-15 and with a further prayer to direct Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 3 to de-reserve the backlog SC & ST Posts of Medical Officers (Asst. Surgeons) in Group-A (Junior Branch) of the Odisha Medical and Health Services Cadre, which has not been filled up for more than 3 recruitment years, keeping in view of the provisions contained under Sec. 7 of the Odisha Reservation of Vacancies in post and services (For Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes) Act, 1975 (in short Act).

2. While assailing the impugned advertisement so issued under Annexure-15, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioners vehemently contended that since while making the advertisement, to fill up 411 UR posts, in respect of the reserved category candidates, the vacancies have been indicated at a much higher side, violating the reservation principle, the advertisement is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court.

2.1. It is contended that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court so reported in the case ofIndra Sawhney & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors., (1992) Supp (3) SCC 217 and the decision in the case of R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 745 , since in the impugned advertisement while advertising 411 posts for UR category candidates, in respect of reserved category candidates, the vacancy so indicated, is admittedly much above the 50% ceiling, the advertisement so issued by the Commission in not following the reservation principle so far as vertical reservation is concerned, requires interference of this Court.

2.2. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 810, 812 & 814 of the judgment in the case of Indra Sawhney has held as follows:-

“810. While 50% shall be the rule, it is necessary not to put out of consideration certain extraordinary situations inherent in the great diversity of this country and the people. It might happen that in farflung and remote areas the population inhabiting those areas might, on account of their being out of the mainstream of national life and in view of conditions peculiar to and characteristical to them, need to be treated in a different way, some relaxation in this strict rule may become imperative. In doing so, extreme caution is to be exercised and a special case made out.

xxx xxx xxx

812. We are also of the opinion that this rule of 50%applies only to reservations in favour of backward classes made under Article 16(4). A little clarification is in order at this juncture : all reservations are not of the same nature. There are two types of reservations, which may, for the sake of convenience, be referred to as ‘vertical reservations’ and ‘horizontal reservations’. The reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward classes [under Article 16(4)] may be called vertical reservations whereas reservations in favour of physically handicapped [under clause (1) of Article 16] can be referred to as horizontal reservations. Horizontal reservations cut across the vertical reservations — what is called interlocking reservations. To be more precise, suppose 3% of the vacancies are reserved in favour of physically handicapped persons; this would be a reservation relatable to clause (1) of Article 16. The persons selected against this quota will be placed in the appropriate category; if he belongs to SC category he will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments; simi