Horizontal reservations for persons with disabilities cannot be further sub-classified on the basis of caste or religion.

The petitioner, a hearing-impaired person (46% disability), applied for the post of Physical Education Teacher (P.E.T.) in District Kullu under a special drive for physically challenged persons

During the initial interview on January 27, 2008, the petitioner secured the highest marks (38.11) among eligible local candidates

However, these interviews were cancelled, and a fresh process was conducted on February 28, 2008

In the second process, the respondents appointed Respondent No. 5 (an Ortho-handicapped person from another district) and disqualified the petitioner on the grounds that the specific post for hearing-impaired candidates was now reserved for the Scheduled Caste (SC) category, which the petitioner did not belong to

The petitioner challenged this selection as arbitrary and illegal

Article 16 of the Constitution of India, distinguishing between vertical reservation under Article 16(4) and horizontal reservation under Article 16(1)

The precedent set by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Gupta and others v. Yashwant Kumar Ahirwar and others (AIR 2007 SC 3136), which established that "a disabled is a disabled" and that further classification based on caste, creed, or religion within the disabled category is ordinarily impermissible as they constitute a special class

The court reasoned that the petitioner was the merit leader in the initial interview when the post was not caste-reserved

The subsequent action of the State to reserve the hearing-impaired vacancy specifically for SC candidates was deemed a "travesty of justice" and a violation of the hallmark of reasonableness under Article 14

Following the Mahesh Gupta doctrine, the court held that since horizontal reservation for the disabled is a policy to fulfill constitutional objectives and international commitments, sub-dividing this group by caste creates an illegal barrier

Regarding the geographic restriction, the court clarified that while the State cannot restrict appointments solely to local district residents for the disabled, the primary illegality remained the improper caste-based sub-reservation that excluded the petitioner

The court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to offer the petitioner an appointment as P.E.T. effective from March 1, 2008 (the date Respondent No. 5 was appointed)

The petitioner is entitled to all consequential benefits on a notional basis, with actual salary to commence if the appointment is not provided within three months of the judgment