SC/ST/OBC PwD Candidates Equally Entitled To Compete For Unreserved PwD Posts; Meritorious Reserved Candidates Preferred: Supreme Court
The Court clarified that "unreserved" is not a separate social category and that horizontal vacancies in the open pool must be filled based on inter se merit across all social groups.
Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice N. Kotiswar Singh, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has held that all candidates belonging to the SC, ST, or OBC categories who also qualify under a horizontal reservation, such as Persons with Disabilities (PWD), are equally entitled to compete for such posts falling under the "Unreserved" or "Open" category”. The Court clarified that an unreserved post is an open field meant for the world at large and is not a communal or social compartment reserved for those who do not belong to SC, ST, or OBC categories.
Consequently, the Bench noted that the principle of mobility allows a more meritorious reserved category candidate to be adjusted against an unreserved horizontal vacancy, even if qualified unreserved candidates are available. It further noted that for a post earmarked for a special category like PWD-LV within the unreserved pool, the sole decisive factor is merit among all candidates possessing that specific disability. A restrictive interpretation that grants preference to a less meritorious unreserved candidate over a higher-scoring SC/ST/OBC candidate would be patently arbitrary and violative of the equality clauses under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed, “…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 vertical social categories, whether SC, ST or OBC, provided such candidates are also Persons with Disabilities. Thus, all candidates, whether SC, ST or OBC, but who are Persons with Disabilities, are equally entitled to compete for the post meant for Persons with Disabilities falling under the Unreserved category, the rationale being that all those who are similarly situated must be treated equally”.
The dispute originated from a recruitment drive initiated by the West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade II. The notification earmarked thirty vacancies, including one post for the Unreserved (Persons with Disabilities-Low Vision) [UR (PWD-LV)] category and five for the Other Backward Classes-A (OBC-A) category. Respondent No. 1, an unreserved candidate, applied for the UR (PWD-LV) post, while Respondent No. 3, who belonged to the OBC-A category and also suffered from Low Vision, applied under his social category.
Although Respondent No. 3 was not selected within the OBC-A quota due to higher competition, he secured 66.667 marks, significantly higher than the 55.667 marks obtained by Respondent No. 1. Consequently, the appellant authority offered the UR (PWD-LV) post to the more meritorious Respondent No. 3.
Thereafter, Respondent No. 1 challenged this appointment before the Calcutta High Court, pursuant to which, the Single Bench initially dismissed the writ petition, finding that the higher merit of Respondent No. 3 justified his appointment.
However, on appeal, the Division Bench reversed this decision, interpreting a note in the recruitment notification to mean that a reserved category PWD candidate could only be considered if no qualified unreserved PWD candidate was available. The Division Bench held that since Respondent No. 1 was a qualified unreserved candidate, he held a prior right to the seat regardless of the higher marks obtained by the OBC-A candidate.
Now, the Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's judgment, terming its interpretation "fallacious". The Court reasoned that the unreserved category is not a communal or social compartment but a pool open to the world at large. When a horizontal reservation for PWD-LV is applied to the unreserved category, it becomes open to all candidates possessing that disability, regardless of their social category.
“In reservation law, it is well settled that Unreserved/Open category does not refer to any social/communal category like SCs, STs or OBCs. In other words, any post falling under the Unreserved or Open category does not pertain to any particular social category; it provides an open field or pool meant for the world at large, in the sense that it is open to all candidates, irrespective of whether one belongs to any social or special category or not”, the Bench noted.
“The principle of migration in reservation will be applicable in this scenario also. Thus, even though there are candidates under the Unreserved category who are Persons with Disabilities, if there are more meritorious candidates belonging to any of the social categories like SC, ST or OBC who are also Persons with Disabilities, such more meritorious persons from the SC, ST or OBC category can be appointed against the Unreserved quota meant for Person with Disabilities by virtue of merit”, the Bench further noted.
The Court held that the principle of mobility allows a meritorious reserved category candidate to migrate to an unreserved post, provided they have not availed themselves of any specific relaxations, such as age or experience, that are unavailable to unreserved candidates. Since Respondent No. 3 was more meritorious and had not relied on such relaxations, his appointment was constitutionally sound.
“…this horizontally reserved post of PWD-LV falling under the Unreserved category can be filled by any PWD-LV candidate belonging to any social reserved category, as this post of PWD-LV under the Unreserved category is also open to all PWD-LV candidates belonging to any social reserved category. In other words, any candidate belonging to any social category can compete for this post so long as they belong to the PWD-LV category. The principle of mobility will also apply when filling the said post of UR (PWD-LV)”, the Bench, thus, noted.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Division Bench dated May 7, 2024, and restored the order of the Single Bench dated December 11, 2023.
Cause Title: The West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Dipendu Biswas & Ors. [Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 330]
Appellants: Kunal Chatterji, AOR, Maitrayee Banerjee, Rohit Bansal, Varij Nayan Mishra, Advocates.
Respondents: Samarendra Nath Biswas, Anindo Mukherjee, Deepti Garg, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR, Kunal Mimani, AOR, Shraddha Chirania, Akshay Luthra, Soumya Dutta, AOR, Siddhant Upmanyu, Nisstha Balodia, Advocates.