The High Court of Delhi on Tuesday set aside an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), ruling that Northern Railways had correctly applied the principles of horizontal reservation for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) by adjusting the selected candidate against their respective vertical (social) reservation category.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain allowed a writ petition filed by Northern Railways, holding that the CAT erred in directing a de novo selection process based on the premise that PwBD reservation constitutes a separate, distinct class for selection.
Background of the Case
The petition, W.P.(C) 2604/2025, was filed by Northern Railways challenging the CAT’s order dated 11.10.2023. The respondent, Mr. Amzad, had approached the Tribunal after being excluded from a written test for promotion to the post of Senior Clerk/Commercial.
The Railways had issued a notification on 06.04.2023 for 06 promotional posts, broken down as: two (02) Unreserved (UR), two (02) Scheduled Caste (SC), and two (02) Scheduled Tribe (ST), which included one (01) vacancy reserved for PwD.
The respondent, Mr. Amzad, a PwBD candidate in the UR category, was not called for the test as he was lower in seniority. The Railways’ action was based on the fact that another candidate, Mr. Lakhender Kumar Paswan, who belonged to the SC category and was within the zone of consideration for the SC vertical quota, was also a PwBD candidate. The Railways contended that Mr. Paswan’s selection fulfilled the one horizontal PwD vacancy.
The CAT, however, allowed Mr. Amzad’s O.A., directing the Railways to conduct the entire process de novo. The Tribunal held that reservation for PwD is “for persons with disabilities without any further reservation into a particular category or class.” It ruled that the Railways’ method of first reserving positions for SC/ST/UR and then assigning one place to a PwBD was incorrect.
Submissions of the Parties
The petitioners (Northern Railways), represented by Mrs. Anubha Bhardwaj, CGSC, argued that PwBD reservation is horizontal in nature. Relying on the Supreme Court judgments in Anil Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors. and Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors., they submitted that the correct procedure is to first fill vertical quotas (UR, SC, ST) and then check if the required number of horizontal quota candidates (PwBD) have been selected.
The petitioners argued that since Mr. Lakhender Kumar Paswan, an SC candidate, also met the PwBD standard, he “was considered against the said post reserved for SC as also PwBD.” They further cited the Office Memorandum dated 17.05.2022, which states that the zone of consideration is extended only if a PwBD candidate is not available in the normal zone.
The respondent (Mr. Amzad), represented by Mr. S.K. Rungta, Sr. Adv., contended that PwBD candidates are a separate class and that reservation should be applied post-selection, whereas he was excluded before that stage. He submitted that as he was senior to Mr. Paswan, he was entitled to the appointment.
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court, after considering the submissions, sided with the petitioners. The Bench first referred to Rule 11(4) of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Rules, 2017, noting that it “shall be horizontal and the vacancies for persons with benchmark disabilities shall be maintained as a separate class.”
The Court then extensively quoted the Supreme Court’s judgment in Anil Kumar Gupta, which laid down the correct procedure for horizontal reservation:
“…The proper and correct course is to first fill up the OC quota (50%) on the basis of merit; then fill up each of the social reservation quotas, i.e., SC, ST and BC; the third step would be to find out how many candidates belonging to special reservations have been selected on the above basis. … But if it is not so satisfied, the requisite number of special reservation candidates shall have to be taken and adjusted/accommodated against their respective social reservation categories by deleting the corresponding number of candidates therefrom.”
The Bench also cited the Rajesh Kumar Daria case, which affirmed this method.
Applying this principle, the High Court concluded that the procedure is to first fill the vertical quota (in this case, 2 for SC) in order of merit and then identify PwD candidates among them. The judgment states:
“It is only where none of them would have also satisfied the test of PwD that the zone of selection would have dropped further. As Mr. Lakhender Kumar Paswan is an SC candidate and also satisfies the PwD reservation criteria, he was considered for the PwD vacancy. We find no fault in the same.”
The Court also found the Railways’ action consistent with the Office Memorandum dated 17.05.2022, which states that horizontal reservation “cuts across vertical reservation” and selected PwBD candidates “have to be placed in the appropriate category viz. SC/ST/OBC/ Unreserved.”
The Court dismissed the judgments cited by the respondent as “not relevant to the controversy” as they did not deal with the specific “manner in which the appointments are to be made.”
Decision
Finding that the CAT had “erred in interfering with the selection process,” the High Court allowed the petition.
“The Impugned Order cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside,” the Bench of Justice Navin Chawla and Justice Madhu Jain ruled, affirming the selection procedure adopted by Northern Railways.
