In a significant ruling, the Andhra Pradesh High Court has criticized the Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission (APPSC) for its flawed implementation of horizontal reservation, which led to the denial of a meritorious candidate’s selection for the post of Assistant Conservator of Forests (ACF). The court reaffirmed that horizontal reservation cannot override merit and held that the APPSC’s selection process violated constitutional principles by appointing lower-ranked candidates over more deserving ones.
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from recruitment notification No. 23/2007, issued by APPSC to fill 22 vacancies for Assistant Conservator of Forests. Among these, six vacancies were earmarked for Open Category (OC) General and four for OC Women, making a total of ten OC positions.
K. Suresh Kumar, the petitioner, secured 409 marks out of 660, ranking 9th in the OC General category. However, when APPSC published the final selection list on May 25, 2010, his name was absent. APPSC justified the omission by claiming that seven women candidates were selected against the ten OC vacancies, exceeding the 33⅓% horizontal reservation quota for women.
Alleging discriminatory and unlawful selection, Kumar approached the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (APAT) in O.A. No. 3556 of 2010, arguing that the APPSC had misapplied the principle of horizontal reservation, leading to his exclusion despite having higher marks than several selected female candidates.
Legal Issues and Tribunal’s Ruling
The tribunal, in its judgment on March 15, 2012, ruled in favor of Kumar, holding that horizontal reservation should be applied within the general merit list and not as a separate vertical category. It observed that the excess selection of women candidates violated the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in landmark cases, including Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission.
Instead of disturbing the appointments of selected women candidates, the tribunal directed the APPSC to adjust Kumar against a vacant BC-D category post, left unfilled due to a selected candidate’s failure to join.
However, both the State of Andhra Pradesh and the APPSC challenged this order in the High Court (W.P. No. 17319/2012 and W.P. No. 24591/2012, respectively), arguing that Kumar, being from the OC category, could not be appointed against a BC-D vacancy. Simultaneously, Kumar also filed W.P. No. 16265/2014, seeking his appointment in an OC vacancy by setting aside the appointments of the lower-ranked female candidates.
High Court’s Ruling:
Delivering the final verdict on March 18, 2025, the bench of Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Kiranmayee Mandava upheld the tribunal’s ruling that APPSC had incorrectly applied horizontal reservation.
The court reaffirmed the settled principle that horizontal reservation should be applied within the merit list, not in a way that disadvantages more meritorious candidates. Quoting the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajesh Kumar Daria, the court observed:
“Women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal reservation for women. A special reservation must not operate as a separate vertical category overriding merit.”
The court held that APPSC’s method of filling OC General vacancies—first selecting six candidates on merit (including three women) and then filling all four reserved slots with additional women candidates—was unlawful.
“The APPSC’s approach resulted in seven women being appointed against ten vacancies when only four should have been selected under horizontal reservation. This flawed methodology unfairly displaced more deserving male candidates, including the petitioner,” the court noted.
The APPSC’s flawed implementation of reservation rules led to the exclusion of a candidate who ranked 9th out of 10 vacancies, while less meritorious female candidates were appointed.
Final Decision and Directions
While affirming Kumar’s right to selection, the court declined to remove the appointed women candidates, given that they had been serving for over a decade. However, to rectify the injustice, the court directed the State and APPSC to grant Kumar an equivalent appointment in the next available OC vacancy.
“The petitioner cannot be penalized for the State’s mistake. His right to selection remains intact, and the respondents are directed to provide him an appointment at the earliest opportunity,” the court ruled.
