102 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

Date of Decision:29.01.2026 HARSH YADAV ....PETITIONER(S)

VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS ….RESPONDENT(S) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Present: Mr. S. S. Khokher, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Raman B. Garg, Advocate with Mr. Mayank Garg, Advocate Mr. Navdeep Singh, Advocate Ms. Komal Parveen Singh, Advocate for respondent No.6.

Mr. Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate and Ms. Vanshika Daaria, Advocate for respondent No.7-University.

****

ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, J. (Oral)

1. This petition has been filed challenging the instructions dated 15.07.2014, contained in Annexure P-4, issued by the Government of Haryana providing for subdivision of 3% reservation for the Ex- servicemen/Freedom Fighters category. The policy provides for splitting the said 3% reservation by allocating 1% to the General Category, 1% to Scheduled Castes, and 1% to the Backward Classes.

2. The petitioner contends that such categorization of 3% horizontal reservation seats violates the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India, 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217, as well as the judgment in Rakesh Kumar Daria vs.

Rajasthan Public Service Commission, (2007) 8 SCC 785

3. The factual foundation laid in the petition specifies that there are about 765 seats for admission to the MBBS course in the State of Haryana and, as per the petitioner, 23 seats would fall to the share of the Ex-servicemen/Freedom Fighters category. According to the petitioner, only seven persons have been admitted under the said category and the petitioner has been arbitrarily denied the benefit of such reservation.

4. The respondents have filed their reply stating that the reservation for the Ex-servicemen/Freedom Fighters category is in the nature of horizontal reservation and is to be treated distinctly from vertical reservation. It is further stated that there were 744 seats available for the Academic Session 2025-2026 as per the seat matrix, and that persons far in excess of the available seats have actually been admitted. In paragraph No. 9 of the reply filed on behalf of respondent No.7- University, a chart has been reproduced, as per which admissions have been granted in the respective categories:-

MBBS/BDS ACADEMIC SESSION 2025-26 (ADMITTED) AS ON 14.11.2025 Open -CAT- SC-ESM-FF SC- BCA-ESM- BCB-ESM- EWS-ESM-

ESM-FF Deprived- FF FF FF ESM-FF Total 22 2 5 5 3 5

5. It is, therefore, the case of the respondents that the grievance of the petitioner regarding denial of horizontal reservation is factually incorrect. The respondents have opposed the claim of the petitioner on the ground that, due to the petitioner’s low merit, he would not be able to secure admission as there are 68 candidates higher in merit than him. The respondents further submit that the admission process has been carried out pursuant to the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and that the cut-off date for admission, fixed as 30.11.2025, has already expired. It is, therefore, prayed that the writ petition be dismissed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in rejoinder, submits that the respondents are following a flawed policy as a result of which reservation in the respective category is being denied year after year. It is contended that the principles governing horizontal reservation are distinct from those governing vertical reservation.

7. The distinction between the vertical and horizontal reservation has been explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Kumar Daria (supra). After referring to the judgments in Indra Sawhney (supra) as well as Anil Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P., (1995) 5 SCC 173, the Court has clearly delineated the distinct features of the two categories in following words:-

“8. We may also refer to two related aspects before considering the facts of this case. The first is about the description of horizontal reservation. For example, if there are 200 vacancies and