Unreserved posts, even when subject to horizontal reservation for specific categories like disability, are open to all candidates regardless of social category. Merit is the sole criterion for appointment; therefore, a more meritorious candidate from a reserved social category must be preferred over a less meritorious unreserved candidate.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Reservation - Vertical and horizontal - Distinction - Unreserved category - Nature and scope - Merit as the sole criterion for appointment to unreserved posts - Mobility of reserved category candidates to unreserved posts based on merit - Horizontal reservation for persons with disabilities - Whether a candidate from a reserved social category possessing the required horizontal qualification can be appointed to an unreserved post reserved for that horizontal category - Held, yes, provided they are more meritorious than the available unreserved candidates - Such appointment does not violate the reservation policy. (Paras 20, 21, 22, 23, 41, 44)

(B) Recruitment - Notification - Interpretation of conditions - Condition stating that in case of non-availability of qualified unreserved candidates, vacancy to be filled by other categories as per merit - Such condition does not create an absolute bar against more meritorious reserved category candidates - It must be read in consonance with the principle of merit and mobility - Any interpretation preventing the appointment of a more meritorious candidate from a reserved category is arbitrary and violates the equality clause. (Paras 37, 43, 44)

Facts of the case:
A recruitment notification provided for horizontal reservation for persons with disabilities within the unreserved category. A dispute arose when a candidate from a reserved social category, who also possessed the required disability qualification, was more meritorious than the candidate from the unreserved category. The lower appellate court held that the unreserved vacancy must be filled by an unreserved candidate if available, regardless of merit.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the unreserved category is not a separate social or communal category but a pool open to all, provided they meet the specific horizontal criteria. Merit is the inseparable attribute of appointment to such posts.

Issues: Whether a candidate from a reserved social category can be appointed to an unreserved post reserved for a specific horizontal category, and whether the recruitment condition creates an absolute bar against such appointment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that horizontal reservation for persons with disabilities within the unreserved category is open to all candidates, regardless of their social category, provided they possess the required disability qualification. Merit is the sole criterion for filling such posts, and a more meritorious candidate from a reserved social category cannot be denied appointment in favor of a less meritorious unreserved candidate.

Result: Appeal allowed.

Table of Content
1. factual background regarding recruitment, horizontal reservation, and conflicting high court judgments. (Para 1)

NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, J.

1. The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 07.05.2024 passed by the Signature Not Verified RAJNI MUKHI Date: 2026.04.07 Reason: Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta in MAT

69/2024 with CAN 1 of 2024, whereby the order passed by the Single Bench in WPA 26312/2023 was set aside. 2. The core issue involved in this appeal relates to the manner of filling of a vacancy reserved for Person with Disability with Low Vision (PWD-LV) in the Unreserved category UR (PWD-LV)1, where the recruitment notification stipulated that in case of non- availability of qualified unreserved candidate in the PWD-LV category, the vacancy will be filled up by PWD candidates of other categories as per merit.

3. By the impugned order, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court held that when a qualified unreserved PWD-LV candidate is available, the vacancy is to be filled up by the qualified unreserved candidate

1 UR (PWD-LV): Unreserved (Persons with Disabilities – Low Vision or

Blindness)

only, even though there may be more meritorious PWD- LV candidates available in the reserved category of OBC- A, as per of the aforesaid stipulation in the recruitment notification.

4. In order to appreciate this issue involved, a brief reference to the relevant facts would be apposite.

5. A recruitment process was initiated by the Appellant, West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd., for appointment to a number of posts vide Notification No. REC/2023/01.

The said notification includes 30 vacancies for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade II, out of which 1 (one) post was meant for unreserved UR (PWD-LV) and 5 (five) posts for Other Backward Classes-A (OBC-A), OBC-A: Other Backward Class (Most Backward) as follows.

There are also two notes below the table as follows:

* In case of non-availability of qualified UR (PWD-HH) candidate, the vacancy will be filled by PWD candidates of other categories as per merit.

# In case of non-availability of qualified UR (PWD-LV) candidate, the vacancy will be filled by PWD candidates of other categories as per merit.

6. The aforesaid advertisement shows that while certain number of posts are reserved under various social categories (vertical), there are reservations for special categories (horizontal) for these social categories also, that is, reservation within reservation.

Thus, 7 (seven) posts have been earmarked for the Unreserved Category, and further, in the same Unreserved Category, 4 (four) posts have been reserved for the special category of EC, EC : Exempted Category and 1 (one) post each has been reserved for the special categories of Ex-S, Ex-S : Ex-Servicemen, MS and PWD-LV.

In respect of the social reservation (vertical)

category of OBC, it has been further sub-categorised into OBC-A and OBC-B, and horizontal reservations have also been provided for these two sub-categories.

Similarly, there are special (horizontal)

reservations in respect of SCs and STs, with which we are not concerned in this case.

7. Thus, the aforesaid notification indicates both vertical and horizontal reservations.

The horizontal reservation pattern in the aforesaid notification indicates “compartmentalised reservations”,

5 MS: Meritorious Sportspersons

not “overall reservations”, to use the terms described in Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P., (1995) 5 SCC 173, as referred to in Saurav Yadav Vs. State of UP, (2021) 4 SCC 542, where the posts reserved for various categories of horizontal reservations are distributed among the vertical social reservations.

8. In the present case, we are concerned with the posts of UR (PWD-LV) and OBC-A.

The reservation chart, for our convenience, can be shown as follows:

1. UR (PWD-LV) - 1 post (to which the Respondent No.1 belongs)

2. OBC–A - 5 posts (to which the Respondent No.3 belongs)

3. OBC-A (EC) - 1 post

4. OBC-A (P

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1624

Sanjay Karol, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJWest Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. – AppellantVersusDipendu Biswas – RespondentCIVIL APPEAL NO.10262 OF 2025

Cases Referred (5)

Sanjay Karol, Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ
West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Dipendu Biswas – Respondent
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10262 OF 2025