Back
Merit Trumps Category: Supreme Court Backs Higher-Scoring OBC PWD for Unreserved Spot
In a landmark clarification on reservation dynamics, the has ruled that a more meritorious candidate from a reserved social category who qualifies under a —like Persons with Disabilities (Low Vision)—can claim an unreserved vacancy over a less meritorious unreserved candidate. Justices Sanjay Karol and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh delivered the verdict in The & Ors. v. Dipendu Biswas & Ors. (2026 INSC 330), overturning a Division Bench decision and restoring the original appointment.
The bench emphasized that unreserved posts remain an "open field" for all eligible PWD candidates, regardless of , with merit as the sole decider.
Sparks Fly in Junior Engineer Recruitment
The dispute stemmed from a 2023 recruitment drive by the for 30 Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade-II posts. The notification (REC/2023/01) reserved one spot as )—unreserved with for low vision disability—and five for .
Dipendu Biswas (Respondent No. 1), an unreserved candidate, scored 55.667 marks and applied under the UR quota. Respondent No. 3, an candidate also certified as , scored a higher 66.667 but missed the slots due to tougher competition there. The employer appointed Respondent No. 3 to the ) post based on superior merit.
Biswas challenged this in a
(WPA 26312/2023). The Single Bench dismissed it on
, upholding merit. But the Division Bench, in MAT 69/2024 (
), reversed course, interpreting a notification note—
"In case of non-availability of qualified
)
candidate, the vacancy will be filled by PWD candidates of other categories as per merit"
—as mandating priority for any available UR PWD candidate, merit be damned.
Appellant's Push for Pure Merit vs. Respondent's Category Claim
The appellants (employer) argued that ) is open to all candidates across social categories, invoking the "mobility" principle where reserved candidates migrate to open slots on merit without affecting their quotas. They stressed the notification's compartmentalized horizontal reservations and precedents like .
Biswas countered that the note created a strict hierarchy: UR PWD first, others only if none available. He claimed his unreserved status gave him priority, portraying the UR category as a distinct "social" bin excluding reserved migrants—a view the Division Bench endorsed.
Media reports from LiveLaw and others highlighted this as a classic vertical- clash, with the employer decrying the High Court's "fallacious" social categorization of "unreserved."
Unpacking Reservations: Vertical Walls, Horizontal Bridges
Drawing from Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), the Court distinguished vertical (social: SC/ST/OBC) from horizontal (special: PWD) reservations. Horizontal ones "" verticals, creating . In Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. (1995), it differentiated "compartmentalised" (non-transferable) from "overall" reservations—here, ) was compartmentalised but open to all on merit.
The bench dismantled the Division Bench's error: "Unreserved" isn't a communal category but a merit-driven pool
"meant for the world at large."
For UR horizontal posts, all
candidates compete equally, per
Saurav Yadav
(2021). Mobility applies: meritorious reserved PWD can "migrate" upward, provided no eligibility relaxations were availed (
Deepa E.V. v. Union of India
, 2017;
Union of India v. Sajib Roy
, 2025).
The note? Merely a fallback, not a bar on merit. Forcing a lower scorer ahead would violate .
Court's Sharpest Insights
Key excerpts capture the essence:
"If the Unreserved/Open post is meant for the special category of Persons with Disabilities, it means that the said post will be open to all candidates of all , whether SC, ST or OBC, provided such candidates are also Persons with Disabilities."
"Merit is the co-attendant and inseparable attribute of appointment to any post under the 'Unreserved' category."
"Even though qualified candidates under the Unreserved category may be available, if there is a candidate belonging to other social reserved category available who is better in merit... the said post is to be filled up by the more meritorious reserved candidate."
"Qua a vacancy/post under 'Unreserved' category for the candidates, all candidates are equal and have similar rights even if they belong to different social reserved categories, and the most meritorious amongst them has to be preferred."
These quotes, echoed in legal news summaries, underscore equality among similarly situated PWDs.
Victory for Merit, Clarity for Future Hiring
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal on , setting aside the Division Bench order and restoring the Single Bench's dismissal. Respondent No. 3's appointment stands.
This ruling fortifies merit in open competitions, prevents arbitrary category preferences, and guides recruiters: No relaxations for migrants, but pure merit rules UR horizontals. It promises fairer PWD inclusions across India's reservation maze, ensuring
"all those who are similarly situated must be treated equally."
