Horizontal Reservation for Persons with Benchmark Disabilities Must be Applied by Interlocking, Not Compartmentalized, Roster Adjustments

The Joint Recruitment Board of Tripura (JRBT) issued advertisements in 2020 and 2021 for 2500 Multi-Tasking Staff (Group-D) and 2410 Group-C posts, respectively.

The advertisements stated that the State’s reservation policy would be followed.

As per the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act, 2016, 4% of vacancies were reserved for persons with benchmark disabilities.

The petitioners, belonging to various disability categories (low vision, locomotor disability), qualified the written tests and interviews.

The final selection lists revealed that several candidates from SC and ST categories who scored lower than the petitioners were selected.

The respondents (JRBT) had compartmentalized the horizontal disability reservation into vertical SC/ST/UR categories before the selection was finalized, effectively treating disability as a vertical reservation.

Section 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which mandates a minimum of 4% reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities.

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, which established the distinction between "vertical" (social) and "horizontal" (categories like disability) reservations, noting that horizontal reservation must "cut across" vertical reservation.

Principles from Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Prabir Datta v. State of Tripura, which dictate that disabled candidates must first be selected based on merit and then adjusted against their respective social categories (interlocking reservation).

The State’s Office Memorandum dated 09.01.2019, which explicitly prohibits treating disability as a vertical reservation.

The Court observed that the JRBT and the Social Welfare Department erroneously compartmentalized disability posts into fixed quotas for SC, ST, and UR before the selection process was completed.

This "pre-allocation" resulted in high-merit disabled candidates being excluded because their social category (UR) was "filled," while lower-merit candidates from other social categories (SC/ST) were selected.

The Court reasoned that as per the "interlocking reservation" principle, candidates with disabilities should be ranked on a single merit list based on their marks.

Once a disabled candidate is selected on merit, they should be "placed" in the social roster (UR, SC, or ST) to which they belong.

The Court also found that the respondents failed to calculate reservation per specific "cadre strength," instead wrongly grouping distinct posts like LDCs and Agriculture Assistants into one pool, violating Section 34 of the RPwD Act.

The Court directed the respondents to: (1) Re-evaluate and publish a fresh selection list for Group-D posts based on the merit of candidates with benchmark disabilities, subsequently accommodating them into vertical categories (UR/SC/ST) as per their status; (2) For Group-C posts, first determine the 4% reservation separately for each cadre/establishment and then follow the merit-based interlocking reservation process; and (3) Complete this entire exercise within four months, with the liberty to cancel existing appointments of ineligible candidates following due procedure.