‘Horizontal Quota’ For A Particular Social Category Can’t Be Filled By Candidates Of Other Social Category: Orissa High Court

While simplifying the position of law, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra observed,

“…it is evident that the principle of mobility as applicable in case of social (vertical) reservations are not applicable to special (horizontal) reservation. This implies that the special reservations like women etc. have to be confined to their respective social categories.”

Pursuant to an advertisement by the Odisha University of Agriculture and Technology (OUAT), the petitioner applied for the post of Asst. Professor, Animal Re-production Gynaecology as SEBC category candidate. Four posts were advertised viz, two unreserved (U.R.) category posts (one reserved for a woman) and one post each for SEBC (Woman) and Scheduled Tribe (Woman).

Upon declaration of results, it was found that two male persons were selected under the U.R. category even though one of the posts belonging to such category was reserved for woman. As a result, Dr. Basanti Jena, a SEBC category candidate who secured the third position, was not adjusted against the unreserved category vacancy for woman.

Resultantly, the petitioner failed to get the only vacancy available for SEBC(W) category as that was occupied by Dr. Jena. Thus, being aggrieved by the allotment procedure, the petitioner approached the High Court.

Referring to the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors., it was argued for the petitioner that the authorities ought to have prepared a merit list of all candidates and thereafter applied the principle of reservation as per the social reservation quotas.

It was further submitted for the petitioner that had such an exercise been done, Dr. Jena could have been adjusted against the U.R. (W) category post. Accordingly, the petitioner being the only SEBC(W) candidate left, could have been appointed against such quota. However, the authorities appointed a male person against the category reserved for women.

On the contrary, it was submitted for the University that the relevant clause of the advertisement states that in the event of non-availability of women candidates or insufficient number of women candidates, the male candidates belonging to the particular community may be appointed.

Therefore, as in the instant case as Dr. Jena belonged to SEBC(W) category, she was rightly selected for the said category and as there was no woman candidate in the U.R. category, the next available male candidate was given appointment in that category.

Court’s Analysis

After giving a careful read to the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria, the Court rejected the contentions advanced by the petitioner. It particularly cited para 9 of the said judgment wherein the Supreme Court attempted to draw a line between ‘vertical reservation’ and ‘horizontal reservation’. The Court had therein elucidated the processes as to how both the reservations work.

While explaining the contours of ‘vertical reservations’, the Apex Court had observed,

“Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a Backward Class under Article 16(4), the candidates belonging to such Backward Class, may compete for non-reserved posts and if they are appointed to the non-reserved posts on their own merit, their number will not be counted against the quota reserved for respective Backward Class. Therefore, if the number of SC candidates, who by their own merit, get selected to open competition vacancies, equals or even exceeds the percentage of posts reserved for SC candidates, it cannot be said that the reservation quota for SCs has been filled. The entire reservation quota will be intact and available in addition to those selected under open competition category.”

Similarly, it explained the working pattern of ‘horizontal reservations’ in the following words,

“Where a special reservation for women is provided within the social reservation for Scheduled Castes, the proper procedure is first to fill up the quota for Scheduled Castes in order of merit and then find out the number of candidates among them who belong to the special reservation group of “Scheduled Caste women”. If the number of women in such list is equal to or more than the number of special reservation quota, then there is no need for further selection towards the special reservation quota. Only if there is any shortfall, the requisite number of Scheduled Caste women shall have to be taken by deleting the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of the list relating to Scheduled Castes.”

The Court then applied the aforesaid legal position to the facts of the case at hand and opined, the principle that the petitioner has harped upon is applied in case of vertical reservation but not for horizontal reservation.

Justice Mishra then proceeded on to restate the procedure to be followed while distributing the available positions against vacancies. He said, at first a merit list is to be drawn up for all candidates irrespective of their categories in the order of merit.

The next step is to fill up the social reservation quota i.e. SC, ST, SEBC etc. It is after this stage that the adjustment of special category candidates like women have to be considered against each social category to see whether the requirement of having a particular number of special category candidates in each social reservation category is fulfilled.

“If it is found that in a particular category there is a short fall of women candidates, then the requisite number of such candidates shall have to be taken and adjusted/accommodated against their respective social reservation categories”, he added.

Thus, the Court opined that if the petitioner’s argument is accepted, it would imply that the authorities were bound to appoint a woman candidate belonging to any category, if there was a shortfall in the U.R. category which cannot be sanctioned under the settled position of law.

It said that had Dr. Jena been an unreserved category candidate, she could have been accommodated against the vacancy UR(W) quota despite scoring less marks than the person securing the second rank. But she had applied as a SEBC candidate and therefore, she can only be considered against SEBC category, in so far as horizontal reservation is concerned.

Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed being devoid of merit.

Case Title: Prangya Paramita Harichandan v. Orissa University of Agriculture and Technology & Ors.

Case No.: W.P.(C) No. 14758 of 2015

Date of Judgment: February 28, 2023

Counsel for the Petitioner: Soma Pattnaik, Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents: S.C. Rath, Advocate; Ashutosh Mishra, Advocate

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Ori) 30