CAT - ['Chandigarh']

Horizontal Reservation for Ex-Servicemen is Impermissible in Group ‘B’ Posts and Cannot Be Carried Forward

Manjeet vs Education Deptt., Ut Chandigarh

CAT - ['Chandigarh']JUDGMENT: April 24, 20262 MIN READSOURCE JUDGMENT
THE ORIGINAL LAWLENS SUMMARY
01

Facts

The applicants, possessing high academic qualifications (Post-graduation and B.Ed.) and having cleared CTET/NET, applied for the post of TGT (Social Studies) under the General Category following Advertisement No. 05/2023 dated 09.02.2024

Source reference: p.2

Out of 303 TGT posts advertised, the Chandigarh Administration reserved 30 posts for the Ex-Serviceman (ESM) category through horizontal reservation

Source reference: p.2

The applicants secured high ranks (Serial Nos. 10 and 11) in the General category merit list

Source reference: p.3

They challenged the advertisement on the grounds that TGT is a Group ‘B’ post as per the Union Territory of Chandigarh Employees (Condition of Service) Rules, 2022, and relevant DoP&T guidelines, which do not permit horizontal reservation for ESM in Group ‘B’ posts

Source reference: p.4, 7

The respondents argued that the recruitment followed 1991 Rules where TGT was classified as Group ‘C’, and that newer rules were yet to be finalized

Source reference: p.5, 6
02

Issues

Whether the Chandigarh Administration can legally provide horizontal reservation to the Ex-Servicemen (ESM) category for recruitment to Group ‘B’ posts (TGT)

Source reference: p.8 / para. 6

Whether unfilled horizontal reservation vacancies can be carried forward or must be filled by merit from the respective vertical category

Source reference: p.9 / para. 8
03

Law Applied

DoP&T Order No. 11012/7/2008-Estt.(A) dated 17.04.2009, which classifies Central Civil posts into Group ‘B’ based on a Grade Pay of Rs. 4200 to Rs. 5400

Source reference: p.8, 9

Union Territory of Chandigarh Employees (Condition of Service) Rules, 2022, which made Central Civil Service Rules applicable to UT Chandigarh

Source reference: p.7

Saurav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021), which held that horizontal reservations are “interlocking” and cannot be carried forward

Source reference: p.9, 10

Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) and Upendra v. State of U.P. (2018) to establish that unfilled horizontal posts must be filled by merit within the vertical category to avoid reverse discrimination

Source reference: p.10, 11
04

Reasoning

The Tribunal found that under the 2022 Rules and the DoP&T notification dated 09.04.2009, the post of TGT (carrying a Grade Pay of Rs. 4600) is strictly classified as a Group ‘B’ post

Source reference: p.8, 9

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' contention that the 1991 Rules (classifying TGT as Group ‘C’) still applied, noting that the 2022 Notification had specifically adopted Central rules which do not provide for ESM reservation in Group ‘B’ posts

Source reference: p.7, 8

Applying the principle from Saurav Yadav, the Tribunal reasoned that horizontal reservations are not separate silos; if no eligible ESM candidates exist or if the reservation itself is unauthorized for that group, the posts must revert to the general merit list

Source reference: p.10

The Tribunal noted that providing such reservation in Group ‘B’ was violative of Central Government instructions and previous coordinate bench decisions, such as OA No. 060/157/2025

Source reference: p.4, 8
05

Holding

The Tribunal allowed the OA, answering that horizontal reservation for ESM is not permissible for Group ‘B’ TGT posts

The respondents were directed to fill these posts based on pure merit without horizontal ESM reservation and to issue appointment orders to the applicants within eight weeks if they meet the merit criteria, with notional seniority granted from the date of the next below candidate's appointment

Source reference: p.11 / para. 9(i)-(iv)
CAT - ['Chandigarh']

Original Court PDF

ManjeetvsEducation Deptt., Ut Chandigarh

CAT - ['Chandigarh'] · April 24, 2026

Click to open original judgment

Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in

Click to open original judgment