Meritorious reserved category candidates prevail for unreserved horizontal posts despite availability of unreserved candidates.

The Appellant (WBSETCL) issued Recruitment Notification No. REC/2023/01 for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade II, which included 30 vacancies.

The notification provided for vertical (social) and horizontal (special) reservations, specifically earmarking one post for Unreserved Persons with Disabilities – Low Vision [UR (PWD-LV)] and five posts for Other Backward Classes-A [OBC-A].

A note in the notification stated that if a qualified UR (PWD-LV) candidate was unavailable, the vacancy would be filled by PWD candidates of other categories as per merit.

Respondent No. 1, a qualified UR (PWD-LV) candidate, scored 55.667 marks. Respondent No. 3, an OBC-A candidate who also belonged to the PWD-LV category, scored 66.667 marks.

The Appellant appointed Respondent No. 3 to the UR (PWD-LV) post based on higher merit.

The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court set aside this appointment, holding that as long as a qualified Unreserved PWD-LV candidate (Respondent No. 1) was available, the post could not be filled by a candidate from a reserved social category.

The Appellant challenged this before the Supreme Court.

Whether a meritorious PWD-LV candidate belonging to a reserved social category (OBC-A) can be appointed against a horizontal reservation vacancy in the Unreserved category [UR (PWD-LV)] even if a qualified unreserved candidate is available.

The court relied on the landmark principles of reservation established in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, which distinguished between vertical and horizontal reservations and affirmed that reserved category candidates selected on their own merit are not counted against the reserved quota.

It further applied Saurav Yadav v. State of UP, which held that the "Open/Unreserved" category is not a social category but a merit pool where horizontal reservation quotas must first be filled by adjusting the most meritorious candidates, regardless of their social category.

Additionally, the court cited Deepa E.V. v. Union of India to clarify that such migration is permissible only if the reserved candidate has not availed of any relaxation (age/marks) meant specifically for their reserved category.

The Court reasoned that the "Unreserved" category is not a "communal or social" category but a pool open to all candidates based on merit.

When a horizontal reservation (like PWD-LV) is applied to the Unreserved category, it remains "Open" to all persons with that specific disability, whether they belong to SC, ST, OBC, or no reserved category.

The Court held that the principle of "mobility" allows a more meritorious reserved category candidate (Respondent No. 3) to migrate to the Unreserved pool.

The Division Bench's interpretation—that an unreserved candidate must be preferred simply for being "unreserved"—was deemed fallacious as it treated "Unreserved" as a protected social class rather than a merit-based pool.

The Court clarified that the notification's "non-availability" clause was merely a restatement of the law and could not be used to bypass the merit of Respondent No. 3, who had scored higher than Respondent No. 1 and had not used any eligibility relaxations.

The Court held that for a vacancy under the Unreserved horizontal category, all candidates belonging to that special category (PWD-LV) are equal, and the most meritorious candidate must be preferred, regardless of their social reserved status.

Consequently, the appointment of the more meritorious Respondent No. 3 was upheld, and the Single Bench decision was restored.