The Supreme Court of India has ruled that a meritorious candidate from a reserved social category (SC/ST/OBC) who also belongs to a horizontal reservation category, such as Persons with Disabilities (PWD), is entitled to occupy an “Unreserved” vacancy earmarked for that horizontal category if they are more meritorious than the Unreserved candidate.
The Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh set aside a judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta, which had previously held that Unreserved (UR) PWD vacancies must be filled by UR candidates as long as they are qualified, regardless of higher-ranking PWD candidates from other social categories.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a recruitment process initiated by the West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. (Appellant) for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade II. The notification (No. REC/2023/01) specified 30 vacancies, including:
- 7 Unreserved (UR) posts, with 1 post horizontally reserved for UR (PWD-LV) (Low Vision/Blindness).
- 5 OBC-A posts.
A specific note in the notification stated: “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.”
Dipendu Biswas (Respondent No. 1), a PWD-LV candidate from the Unreserved category, scored 55.667 marks. Respondent No. 3, an OBC-A candidate who also belonged to the PWD-LV category, scored 66.667 marks. Since Respondent No. 3 was not selected within the 5 OBC-A slots due to higher merit among other OBC-A candidates, the Appellant offered him the single UR (PWD-LV) post based on his superior merit compared to Respondent No. 1.
The Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta had reversed a Single Bench decision, holding that since a “qualified” UR candidate (Biswas) was available, the vacancy could not go to a reserved category candidate.
Court’s Analysis and Legal Principles
The Supreme Court examined the nature of vertical (social) and horizontal (special) reservations, citing the landmark decisions in Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India and Saurav Yadav Vs. State of UP.
1. Nature of “Unreserved” Category
The Court clarified that the “Unreserved” or “Open” category is not a social or communal bin.
“It merely denotes the remaining vacancies or percentages of posts available after accounting the posts/percentages under different reservation categories… Merit is the co-attendant and inseparable attribute of appointment to any post under the ‘Unreserved’ category.”
2. Horizontal Reservation within Unreserved Category
The Bench observed that when a horizontal reservation (like PWD-LV) is applied to the Unreserved category, it remains an “open field” for all candidates possessing that specific disability, regardless of their social category (SC/ST/OBC).
“A post earmarked for special (horizontal) reservation under the Unreserved category will be open to every candidate possessing the attribute or character of the special (horizontal) reservation.”
3. The Principle of Mobility
The Court emphasized that “mobility” or “migration” from a reserved category to an unreserved slot based on merit is a settled legal position.
“If any Unreserved candidate (belonging to PWD-LV) available, is found to be below in merit to any other reserved candidate (belonging to PWD-LV), such PWD-LV candidate belonging to the Unreserved category cannot steal a march over the more meritorious PWD-LV candidate from the reserved category as it would defy the principle of merit.”
The Court noted that the Division Bench’s interpretation would be “patently arbitrary” and “opposed to the equality clause under Articles 14 and 16.”
4. Condition on Relaxation
The Bench reiterated that for a reserved category candidate to move to an unreserved slot, they must not have availed themselves of any relaxations (like age or experience) meant specifically for reserved categories. Citing Deepa E.V. vs. Union of India, the Court noted there was no evidence that Respondent No. 3 had used such relaxations.
The Decision
The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s Division Bench had “misunderstood the implication” of the recruitment notification. The Court held that the note in the notification regarding “non-availability” was merely stating the obvious and could not override the constitutional principle of merit in unreserved categories.
“Qua a vacancy/post under ‘Unreserved’ category for the PWD-LV candidates, all PWD-LV 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.”
The appeal was allowed, the Division Bench’s order dated 07.05.2024 was set aside, and the Single Bench’s decision dismissing the writ petition was restored.
Case Details:
- Case Title: The West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Dipendu Biswas & Ors.
- Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 10262 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh
- Date: April 07, 2026
