Unfilled horizontal reservation vacancies cannot be carried forward and must be filled by merit candidates.

The applicant, possessing an M.Sc. and B.Ed., applied for the post of Lecturer (PGT) Mathematics under the General category pursuant to Advertisement No. 03/2023.

The applicant secured the 3rd rank in the General category merit list.

While three posts were available for the General category, the respondents only filled two, keeping the third vacant under the label "ESM-General-1 (Vacant)".

The respondents contended that horizontal reservation for Ex-Servicemen (ESM) applies to Group ‘B’ posts and that unfilled ESM vacancies must be carried forward for at least one year as per DoPT OMs and the Ex-Servicemen Rules, 1979.

The applicant challenged this, arguing that horizontal reservation vacancies cannot be carried forward to displace merit-category candidates.

1. Whether the respondents were legally justified in keeping a General category post vacant by carrying forward an unfilled horizontal ESM reservation vacancy.

2. Whether horizontal reservation for Ex-Servicemen is applicable to Group ‘B’ posts under the Chandigarh Administration.

The court primarily applied the principles of horizontal versus vertical reservation as articulated by the Supreme Court in Saurav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which established that horizontal reservations are not "inviolate pools" and cannot be carried forward if suitable candidates are unavailable.

It further relied on Anupal Singh v. State of U.P. [para. 12] and Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., which held that unfilled horizontal reservation posts must be filled by candidates from the respective vertical category based on merit.

The court also referenced the Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979 and its 2012 amendment regarding the extension of benefits to Group ‘B’ (Non-Gazetted) posts.

The Tribunal reasoned that even if ESM reservation applies to Group ‘B’ posts, the methodology of "carry forward" used by respondents was flawed.

Citing Saurav Yadav, the Tribunal noted that horizontal reservation is a process of "adjustment" rather than creating rigid compartments; thus, if no ESM candidate qualifies, the seat must revert to the vertical category (General) to be filled by the next meritorious candidate.

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' reliance on the 1979 Rules to justify keeping the post vacant, stating that such action causes "reverse discrimination" against meritorious candidates and is detrimental to the institution's interest by leaving essential teaching positions unfilled.

The Bench emphasized that once the ESM quota remains unfilled, the post does not remain reserved and must be offered to the open merit list.

It held that there is no concept of carrying forward unfilled horizontal reservation vacancies to the detriment of merit-category applicants.

The respondents were directed to consider the applicant for appointment as Lecturer (PGT) Mathematics based on his merit rank within eight weeks, granting him notional seniority from the date his peers were appointed, with actual monetary benefits starting from his date of joining.