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

2026 Supreme(MP) 604

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
VIVEK RUSIA, PRADEEP MITTAL, JJ.
The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others – Appellants 
Versus
Aditya Tiwari And Others – Respondents 
Writ Appeal No. 1156 Of 2013, Writ Appeal No. 600 Of 2014
Decided On : 11-02-2026

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Smt. Janhavi Pandit, Additional Advocate General
For the Respondent:Shri Abhay Tiwari, Advocate, Shri Pravesh Naveriya, Advocate

The unreserved category in public recruitment is a merit-based pool open to all candidates. Reserved category candidates who meet the merit criteria for the unreserved category must be allotted seats there, and cannot be displaced by less meritorious candidates from the unreserved category.

Headnote:(A) Service Law - Reservation - Unreserved Category - The unreserved quota is open to all candidates on the basis of merit, regardless of whether the candidate belongs to a reserved category. The open category is not a “quota” but a merit-based pool accessible to all. (Paras 17, 21)

(B) Vertical vs. Horizontal Reservation - A candidate from a reserved category who is more meritorious than the last candidate selected in the unreserved category must be allotted a seat from the unreserved category. The principle that candidates in horizontal reservations cannot migrate to other categories is no longer considered good law in light of recent judicial precedents. (Paras 17, 18, 19, 20)

(C) Judicial Review - Scope of inquiry in recruitment matters - The court does not act as a selection committee or expert body to reassess merit. Judicial review is limited to examining whether the selection process is contrary to statutory rules or suffers from illegality, arbitrariness, or mala fides. (Para 6)

Facts of the case:
In a recruitment process for the post of Sub Inspector (Radio), which included both unreserved and reserved vacancies, a candidate from the unreserved category challenged the appointment of a candidate from a reserved category. The reserved category candidate had been adjusted against the general quota (ex-servicemen) based on merit. A single judge had previously allowed the writ petition, cancelling the selection of the reserved category candidate and directing the appointment of the unreserved candidate through a series of adjustments in the selection list.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the unreserved quota is available to all eligible candidates and is not restricted to those in the general category. It held that the selection of the reserved category candidate was consistent with the law as they were selected based on merit, and the single judge's directions to redistribute seats were unsustainable.

Issues: Whether the unreserved category in recruitment is a restricted quota for general candidates or a merit-based pool open to all, and whether a reserved category candidate could be lawfully adjusted against the general quota based on merit.

Ratio Decidendi: The "open category" is a merit-based pool and not a quota exclusively for general candidates. A reserved category candidate who possesses merit higher than the cutoff for the unreserved category must be allotted a seat from the unreserved category. Therefore, canceling the selection of a more meritorious reserved category candidate to accommodate a less meritorious unreserved candidate is legally untenable and disrupts the prescribed reservation quotas.

Result: Appeals allowed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

  • constitutional law
    • reservation
      • vertical reservation (Para 19, 20)
      • horizontal reservation (Para 19, 20)
      • open category (Para 17, 21)
      • migration of reserved category candidates (Para 18, 19, 20, 21)
      • ex-servicemen reservation (Para 5, 13, 14, 24)
  • service law
    • recruitment
      • selection process (Para 2, 3, 4, 5)
      • merit list (Para 3, 4)

Table of Contents

1. Recruitment dispute — Adjustment of reserved category candidate against unreserved ex-serviceman vacancy — Writ court cancelled selection; Division Bench reverses. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )

2. Dispute over application of horizontal reservation and migration of reserved category candidates to unreserved quota based on merit. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )

3. Writ appeals allowed; single judge order set aside; selection of reserved category candidate against general/ex-serviceman quota affirmed. (Para 23 , 24 )

4. Is the open (unreserved) category a quota reserved for general candidates?

No, it is a merit-based pool open to all, including reserved category candidates. (Para 17 , 21 )

5. Can a reserved category candidate who is more meritorious than the last unreserved candidate be selected from the unreserved category?

Yes, they must be allotted a seat from the unreserved category on the basis of merit. (Para 17 )

6. Is the principle that a horizontal reservation candidate cannot migrate to another category still good law?

No, it has been overruled by the latest Supreme Court judgments in Sajib Roy and Sham Krishna B. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 )

7. Must a female quota in the unreserved category be filled exclusively by unreserved female candidates?

No, it is available to all eligible candidates on merit; on non-availability of female, can be filled by male. (Para 21 )

ORDER :

Pradeep Mittal, J.

The present writ appeals arise out of the order dated 03.07.2013 passed by the learned writ court in W.P. No. 610 of 2012, whereby the writ petition filed by writ petitioner Aditya Tiwari (respondent No. 1 herein) was allowed and direction was issued to appoint Aditya Tiwari against the post of ex- serviceman general category stating that against the general quota, no reserve quota candidate can be adjusted and appointment of Anurag Jahariya was cancelled stating that he was wrongly adjusted from reserve quota to general quota of ex-servicemen. Since both these writ appeals involve a common issue, they are heard and decided together by this common order. References to the annexures and documents are taken from W.A. No. 1156 of 2013 for the sake of convenience.

2. The facts leading to the filing of the present cases are that the examination for post of Sub Inspector was conducted by respondent no 1 in the writ petition. There were 30 posts reserved for filling up all the post of Sub Inspector (Radio) in which as per the reservation provided 20% for Scheduled Tribes, 16% for Scheduled Caste and 14% for O.B.C. Out of total 30 posts 15 belong to the unreserved category. The respondent No.1 herein Aditya Tiwari (writ petitioner in the writ petition) belongs to unreserved category. That it is not disputed that the total marks obtained by the writ petitioner is 226 but in written Exams he got less mark than Anurag Jahariya respondent No.14 herein.

3. That in the first scan, 18 candidates were considered for appointment in which 8 candidates were selected against the 9 unreserved quota as 3 candidates unreserved category and 5 candidates belonging to the reserved category on the basis of merit secure unreserved category, and one unreserved candidate for police persons. The last candidate in the open category who was granted appointment in the unreserved quota was Pramod Kumar Jatve who belongs to the reserved category but was treated to be unreserved due to his merit position as he has obtained 231 marks whereas against the writ petitioner who could only secure 226 marks. That all the 9 persons who were selected under the unreserved quota were admittedly having higher merit than the writ petitioner.

4. In the second scan 9 candidates were considered after posts reserved for 5 female candidates were reverted to male candidates due to non- availability of eligible female candidates. That in the second scan 4 persons were granted the benefit of appointment in the unreserved quota Namely : (1) Prashant Singh Parihar, (2) Gajendra Singh Raghuwanshi, (3) Vikash Upadhyay, (4) Sanjeev Pandey. Shri Sanjeev Pandey was having equal marks as granted to the respondent but was granted the benefit of appointment in the light of clause 1.11 of the recruitment rules wherein 2 candidates are having equal marks than the candidate having higher marks in the written examination will be considered for appointment. Shri Sanjeev Pandey had obtained 189 marks in the written examination as against the petitioner who obtained 182 marks thus Shri Sanjeev Pandey in the unreserved category against female quota was granted the benefit of appointment. Thus, in the first scan out of the total 15 posts reserved for general category 9 posts were filled up in which none of the candidates was lower in merit than the writ petitioner.

5. That 3 posts were reserved for ex-serviceman candidates could not be filled up therefore same were reverted to 1 post to unreserved, 2 posts to Scheduled Tribes and 1 post to Scheduled Caste. That against the unreserved category Shri Ajay Singh was granted the benefit of appointment though he was having equal marks of 226 as the respondent but had obtained 186 marks in his written examination whereas the petitioner only could secure 182 marks. Thus by virtue of clause 1.11 of the rules having obtained more marks in the written examination Shri Ajay Singh was selected for appointment.

6. It is submitted that by the Addit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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