Non-availability of VH candidates warrants carry-forward of vacancies; inter-se exchange with OH category is not mandatory.

The applicant, an Orthopedically Handicapped (OH) candidate, applied for the post of TGT (English) (Female) under Post Code 51/21

Out of 44 vacancies reserved for PwD, 22 were earmarked for OH and 22 for Visually Handicapped (VH) candidates

While all OH vacancies were filled, the applicant was placed at Serial No. 5 in the waiting list

Conversely, 20 VH vacancies remained unfilled due to a lack of suitable candidates

The applicant approached the Tribunal seeking to quash the result and demanding that the unfilled VH vacancies be filled by OH candidates through "inter-se exchange" as per the DoPT Office Memorandum (OM) dated 15.01.2018

The respondents contested, stating that horizontal reservation must be adjusted within vertical categories and that unfilled vacancies had been carried forward to the 2023 recruitment cycle

1. Whether the respondents are legally mandated to fill unfilled VH vacancies by interchanging them with OH candidates from the waiting list in the same recruitment year

2. Whether a candidate in a waiting list possesses an indefeasible right to appointment against vacancies that remain unfilled or are carried forward

Clause 8.1 of the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 15.01.2018 stipulates that unfilled PwBD vacancies shall be carried forward to the succeeding recruitment year, and interchange among disability categories is permitted only if suitable candidates are still unavailable in the succeeding year

Clause 9 of the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 15.01.2018 defines "Horizontality of Reservation," clarifying that PwBD candidates must be adjusted against their respective vertical categories (SC/ST/OBC/UR)

The precedent State of Karnataka Ors. v. Bharathi S. (2024) establishing that inclusion in a waiting list does not confer a vested right to appointment

Northern Railways v. Amzad regarding the procedural mechanics of horizontal reservation

The Tribunal found that under Clause 8.1 of the 2018 OM, inter-se exchange between disability categories (e.g., VH to OH) is not an immediate remedy but is subject to a "carry forward" rule

Specifically, the mandate is to carry forward the unfilled vacancy to the succeeding recruitment year first; only if the vacancy remains unfilled in that subsequent year can interchange be considered

Since the vacancies from the 2021 cycle had already been carried forward to the 2023 cycle, the respondents followed the statutory procedure

The Tribunal also noted that the applicant’s argument relied on "hypothetical assumptions" regarding past backlog

The court reasoned that the OM does not provide for the interchange of vacancies specifically to accommodate candidates from a waiting list, as the employer retains discretion over whether to operate such lists

It held that the applicant has no indefeasible right to appointment by virtue of being in the waiting list

The court further held that the respondents correctly applied the rules by carrying forward the unfilled VH vacancies to the next recruitment cycle rather than interchanging them with the OH category in the current cycle, as the "inter-se exchange" provision is only triggered in the succeeding recruitment years

No costs were awarded