Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Naresh Kumar vs Education Deptt., Ut Chandigarh on 28 January, 2026
1- O.A. No. 157/2025 and connected matters
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Pronounced on: 28.01.2026
Reserved on: 14.01.2026
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SURESH KUMAR BATRA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)
1. Original Application No.060/157/2025
Naresh Kumar, Aged 30 years, S/o Sh. Duni Chand, R/o H. No. 103,
V.P.O. Lilas, Tehsil Siwani, Distt. Bhiwani, Haryana, Temporary R/o H.
No. 573, Milk Colony Dhanas, Chandigarh. Group „B‟
... Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Sandeep Siwatch
Versus
1. UT Chandigarh Administration through Secretary, Education
Department, Union Territory Civil Secretariat, Deluxe Building, Sector-9,
Chandigarh.
2. Director School Education, Education Department, Chandigarh
Administration, 4th Floor, Additional Deluxe Building, Union Territory,
Sector-9, Chandigarh.
... .Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Aseem Rai
2. Original Application No. 060/145/2025
Digitally signed
Anuradha Jakhar, aged about 31 years, daughter of Ashokvir Jakhar,
by MAMTA
WADHWA resident of Village Agroha, District Hisar, Haryana-125047
... Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Sandeep Siwatch
Versus
2- O.A. No. 157/2025 and connected matters
U.T. of Chandigarh through its Director, Education Department,
Chandigarh Administration.
... .Respondent
By Advocate: Mr. Aseem Rai
3. Original Application No.060/158/2025
Naveen Sharma, Aged 34 years, S/o Sh. Mahaveer Prasad Sharma, R/o
Village Jaitpur Partapur, Teh. Neemrana, Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan,
Temporary Resident of House No. 1045, Sector-25, Panchkula-134116.
Group „B‟
... ... Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Sandeep Siwatch
Versus
1. UT Chandigarh Administration through Secretary, Education
Department, Union Territory Civil Secretariat, Deluxe Building, Sector-9,
Chandigarh.
2. Director School Education, Education Department, Chandigarh
Administration, 4th Floor, Additional Deluxe Building, Union Territory,
Sector-9, Chandigarh.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Aseem Rai
4. Original Application No. 060/159/2025
Priya, Aged 28 years, D/o Sh. Sarat Singh, R/o House No. 515-A,
New Police Lines, Sector 26, Chandigarh.
... ... Applicant
3- O.A. No. 157/2025 and connected matters
By Advocate: Mr. Sandeep Siwatch
Versus
1. UT Chandigarh Administration through Secretary, Education
Department, Union Territory Civil Secretariat, Deluxe Building, Sector-9,
Chandigarh.
2. Director School Education, Education Department, Chandigarh
Administration, 4th Floor, Additional Deluxe Building, Union Territory,
Sector-9, Chandigarh.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Aseem Rai
5. Original Application No. 060/160/2025
Sandeep Kaur, Aged 33 years, D/o Sh. Avtar Singh, /o Village Kadrabad,
P.O. Kulburchhan, Tehsil Samana, Distt. Patiala, Punjab.
... ... Applicant
By Advocate: Mr. Sandeep Siwatch
Versus
1. UT Chandigarh Administration through Secretary, Education
Department, Union Territory Civil Secretariat, Deluxe Building, Sector-9,
Chandigarh.
2. Director School Education, Education Department, Chandigarh
Administration, 4th Floor, Additional Deluxe Building, Union Territory,
Sector-9, Chandigarh.
.....Respondents
By Advocate: Mr. Vinay Gupta
4- O.A. No. 157/2025 and connected matters
ORDER
Per: SURESH KUMAR BATRA MEMBER (J):-
1. The above-captioned five Original Applications, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, are being disposed of by this common order with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, as the questions of law involved, the material facts, the reliefs claimed and the grounds raised in support thereof are identical in all the matters. For the sake of convenience, O.A. No. 157/2025 titled Naresh Kumar vs.Union of India and Others is treated as the lead case, and the facts as well as the reliefs have been taken from the said Original Application, which are as under:-
i) Quash provisional merit list for selection to the post of Lecturer (PGT) in Physics against advertisement No.03/2023 dated 17.10.2023, (Annexure A-1), to the extent whereby the respondents kept one post of General category vacant by mentioning that ESM-General-1 (Vacant) whereas no ESM candidate qualified the written test and in view of law settled by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court if the horizontal reserved vacancies were unfilled and those unfilled vacancies of horizontal category were filled by vertical reservation therefore the post of General Category is to be filled amongst the General category candidate who is next in merit i.e. applicant.
ii) Quash advertisement dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure A-2) to the extent whereby respondents providing horizontal reservation to ESM category persons in Advertisement dated 17.10.2023 which is violative of DOP&T instructions.
5- O.A. No. 157/2025 and connected matters
iii) To direct the respondents to consider and appoint the applicant to the post of Lecturer (PGT) Physics under General category with all the consequential benefits.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant possesses the qualification of M.Sc. in Physics and B.Ed. and the same are on record with the respondent department. Respondent No.2 issued Advertisement No.03/2023 dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure A-2) inviting applications for 98 posts of Lecturers (PGTs), Group „B‟, including posts under General, SC, OBC, EWS, PWD and ESM categories by providing horizontal reservation to ESM and PWD. The applicant, being eligible, applied for the post of Lecturer (PGT) Physics, appeared in the written examination held between 10.02.2024 to 13.02.2024 and was allotted Roll No.1809411.
3. After the written test, category-wise merit list was issued and in the General category list for PGT (Physics), the applicant‟s name appeared at Serial No.3 (Annexure A-3). Thereafter, vide notice dated 27.06.2024 (Annexure A-4), candidates were called for verification of documents on 05.07.2024 and the applicant was found eligible, as reflected in the list of eligible candidates (Annexure A-5). The applicant was hopeful of appointment as there were three posts under General category.
4. However, on 29.01.2025, the respondents issued provisional merit list (Annexure A-1) whereby one post of General category was kept vacant by mentioning ESM-General-1 (Vacant), although no ESM candidate had qualified in the General category. The applicant submitted representation dated 30.01.2025 (Annexure A-6), but no action was 6- O.A. No. 157/2025 and connected matters taken. Instead, the respondents issued circular dated 03.02.2025 (Annexure A-7) for issuance of appointment letters to other candidates, excluding the applicant, compelling him to approach this Tribunal.
5. It is the contention of the applicant that he belongs to General category and stood at Serial No.3 against three posts and was thus entitled to appointment. The action of the respondents in keeping one General category post vacant under ESM is arbitrary and contrary to law. Reliance is placed on Din Dayal Gupta and others versus Union of India and others (decided on 19.05.2017) and Anupal Singh and others versus State of U.P. and others, 2020 (2) SCC 173, wherein it has been held that if horizontal reservation posts remain unfilled, they are to be filled by suitable candidates from the respective vertical category on the basis of merit.
6. The applicant further contended that the post of PGT is a Group „B‟ post as per UT Chandigarh Employees (Revised Pay) Rules, 2023 notified on 23.03.2023 and draft Recruitment Rules dated 12.03.2024 (Annexures A-10 and A-11) and as per DoPT policy and RTI reply dated 28.10.2024 (Annexure A-9), horizontal reservation for ESM applies only to Group „C‟ and „D‟ posts but not extended to group „B‟ post. Therefore, the impugned action is violative of statutory rules and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Reliance is also placed on Chand Kishore Jha versus Mahavir Prasad and others, 1999 (7) JT 256.
7. The respondents, by filing written statement, submitted that Advertisement No.03/2023 dated 17.10.2023 was issued for filling 98 posts of Lecturers (PGTs) in various subjects, out of which 47 were for General Category and the remaining under vertical reservation, with 7- O.A. No. 157/2025 and connected matters horizontal reservation of 04 posts for PwBD and 09 posts for ESM. It was clearly mentioned that reservation to SC/OBC/EWS/ESM/PwBD candidates would be given as per Government of India and Chandigarh Administration instructions and that candidates appointed against PwBD/ESM quota would consume posts from their respective vertical categories. The applicant applied under General category after accepting these terms. The respondents further submitted that the rules governing reservation for Ex-Servicemen are contained in the Ex-Servicemen (Re- employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979 as amended. By virtue of notification dated 04.10.2012 (Annexure R-1), the benefit of ESM reservation was extended to Group „B‟ (Non- Gazetted) posts. Further, as per Union Territory of Chandigarh Employees (Conditions of Service) Rules, 2022 notified on 29.03.2022 (Annexure R-2), the service conditions of UT Chandigarh employees are the same as those of corresponding Central Civil Services, and therefore ESM reservation applies to Group „B‟ posts in Chandigarh Administration also. Hence, the challenge to horizontal reservation for ESM in PGT posts is stated to be baseles.
8. The respondents further submitted that as per Rule 4(3) of the Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979, no vacancy reserved for ESM can be filled by a general candidate unless a non-availability certificate is obtained and approval of the Central Government is taken. As per DoPT O.M. dated 12/20.03.1987 (Annexure R-3) read with Notification dated 15.12.1979 (Annexure R-4), unfilled ESM vacancies are required to be kept vacant and carried forward for at least one year before being de-reserved. Since no ESM candidate was found eligible, the ESM post was required 8- O.A. No. 157/2025 and connected matters to be carried forward and, applying the prescribed ratio of 18% SC, 27% OBC and 55% General, one post from General category was kept vacant for ESM. The respondents submitted that the cited judgments relied upon by the applicant are not applicable to the facts of the present case and that appointment letters have already been issued strictly as per the provisional merit list. Therefore, the Original Application is liable to be dismissed.
9. The applicant filed rejoinder and submitted that Advertisement No.03/2023 dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure A-2) did not disclose from which vertical category the horizontal reservation for Ex-Servicemen (ESM) would operate and there are no Government of India or Chandigarh Administration instructions permitting horizontal reservation for ESM in Group „B‟ posts like Lecturer (PGT). The respondents have wrongly relied upon the amendment dated 04.10.2012 to the Ex- Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979 (Annexure R-1), which only extended age relaxation to Group „A‟ and „B‟ posts and did not extend reservation. As per DoPT O.M. dated 09.04.2009 (Annexure A-12), posts carrying Grade Pay ₹4200-₹5400 are Group „B‟, and since PGT carries Grade Pay ₹4800 as per UT Chandigarh notification dated 29.03.2022 (Annexure R-2), no horizontal reservation for ESM applies. This position is fortified by DoPT Compendium dated 25.01.2014 (Annexure A-13), FAQs dated 14.08.2014 (Annexure A-16) and the Ministry of Defence reply in Lok Sabha dated 22.07.2022 (Annexure A-15), clarifying that ESM reservation is confined to Group „C‟ and „D‟ posts.
9- O.A. No. 157/2025 and connected matters
10. The applicant further submitted that in Physics, though three General category posts were advertised, only two appointments have been made as no PwBD or ESM candidate applied or qualified, and the third post has been illegally blocked for ESM. The applicant, being at Serial No.3 in the General category merit list, was entitled to appointment. In terms of Anupal Singh and others versus State of U.P. and others, 2020 (2) SCC 173, unfilled horizontal reservation vacancies are required to be filled from the respective vertical category on merit. It has also been submitted that the respondents have failed to file a proper para-wise reply denying the specific contention and, in view of BSNL versus Abhishek Shukla, 2009 (3) SCT 318 (SC) and Meenakshi versus Union of India and others, O.A. No.060/269/2016 decided on 04.05.2018, the applicant‟s averments deserve acceptance and the OA is liable to be allowed with consequential relief.
11. We have gone through the pleadings, perused the material available on file and considered the rival contentions of learned counsel for both the sides.
12. The undisputed facts of the case are that the respondents issued Advertisement No.03/2023 dated 17.10.2023 for recruitment to 98 posts of Lecturers (PGTs) in the Education Department, Chandigarh Administration, including posts in the subject of Physics with horizontal reservation for Ex-Servicemen and PwBD, providing that such candidates would be adjusted against their respective vertical categories. The applicant applied under the General category, appeared in the written examination and was placed at Serial No.3 in the General 10- O.A. No. 157/2025 and connected matters category provisional merit list for Lecturer (PGT) Physics. It is not in dispute that no Ex-Servicemen candidate qualified or was found eligible for the post of Lecturer (PGT) Physics and that, out of the advertised General category posts in Physics, two candidates have been issued appointment letters, while one General category post has been kept vacant by the respondents on the ground that it is to be carried forward for Ex-Servicemen under the applicable reservation rules and instructions.
13. Upon careful consideration of the pleadings, the rejoinder, the annexures placed on record and the rival submissions, the core issue that arises for determination is whether the respondents were justified in keeping one General Category post of Lecturer (PGT) Physics vacant by tagging it with ESM (Ex-Servicemen) horizontal reservation and carrying it forward, despite the fact that no ESM candidate had qualified in the written examination and the post in question is a Group „B‟ post.
14. The applicant has consistently contended that the post of Lecturer (PGT) is a Group „B‟ post as per DoP&T classification dated 09.04.2009 and Chandigarh Administration notification dated 29.03.2023 (Annexure A-12), and that horizontal reservation for Ex- Servicemen is not applicable to Group „B‟ posts. It is further pleaded that even assuming horizontal reservation could apply, there is no concept of carry forward of unfilled horizontal reservation vacancies in a manner that displaces or withholds a post from the open merit category. The applicant relies upon the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Saurav Yadav and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, 2021 AIE SCC 213, Anupal Singh vs. State of U.P., (2020) 2 11- O.A. No. 157/2025 and connected matters SCC 173 and Jitendra Kumar Singh and Another vs. State of U.P. and Others, and also upon the judgments of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Balwan Singh and Another vs. State of Haryana, 2021 (4) SCT 271 and the Allahabad High Court in Upendra and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2018 (7) ADJ 37.
15. Per contra, the respondents have sought to justify their action by relying upon the Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979 and the amendment dated 04.10.2012 (Annexure R-1), along with the OM dated 12/20.03.1987 (Annexure R-
3) and the notification dated 15.12.1979 (Annexure R-4), to contend that horizontal reservation for ESM extends to Group „B‟ (Non-Gazetted) posts in Chandigarh Administration and that unfilled ESM vacancies are liable to be carried forward. It is also argued that since the advertisement No. 03/2023 dated 17.10.2023 (Annexure A-2) provided for horizontal reservation to ESM candidates, one General Category post was rightly kept vacant and earmarked as "Gen-ESM".
16. We have considered these rival pleas in the light of the settled law. In Saurav Yadav (supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has clearly held that vertical and horizontal reservations are methods of ensuring representation and are not rigid slots. It was categorically laid down that if appropriate number of candidates for filling seats meant for horizontal reservation are not available, there is no carry forward of such vacancies in a manner that disturbs the open merit list. The open category is open to all on the basis of merit alone. Applying this principle to the present case, once no ESM candidate qualified in the written test for Lecturer (PGT) Physics, the respondents could not have withheld a General 12- O.A. No. 157/2025 and connected matters Category seat and carried it forward as ESM. The relevant observations of Hon‟ble Apex Court are as follows:-
"52. The features of vertical reservations are:
(i) They cannot be filled by the open category, or categories of candidates other than those specified and have to be filled by candidates of the concerned social category only (SC/ST/OBC);
(ii) Mobility („migration‟) from the reserved (specified category) to the unreserved (open category) slot is possible, based on meritorious performance;
(iii) In case of migration from reserved to open category, the vacancy in the reserved category should be filled by another person from the same specified category, lower in rank,
(iv) If the vacancies cannot be filled by the specified categories due to shortfall of candidates, the vacancies are to be „carried forward‟ or dealt with appropriately by rules.
53. Horizontal reservations on the other hand, by their nature, are not inviolate pools or carved in stone. They are premised on their overlaps and are „interlocking‟ reservations 21. As a sequel, they are to be calculated concurrently and along with the inviolate „vertical‟ (or "social") reservation quotas, by application of the various steps laid out with clarity in paragraph 11 of Justice Lalit‟s judgement. They cannot be carried forward. The first rule that applies to filling horizontal reservation quotas is one of adjustment, i.e. examining whether on merit any of the horizontal categories are adjusted in the merit list in the open category, and then, in the quota for such horizontal category within the particular specified/social reservation.
16. In Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court reiterated that there is no concept of carry forward of unfilled horizontal reservation vacancies and that such posts, if not filled by the special category, are to be filled in accordance with merit from the respective vertical category. This directly supports the applicant‟s case that the withheld General Category (ESM) post ought to have been filled by the next meritorious General Category candidate, i.e., the applicant in the absence of qualified candidate of ESM category, who has been found to be meritorious and standing at the door of respondents waiting for his rightful claim. We find no reason to keep the post vacant for those 13- O.A. No. 157/2025 and connected matters invisible candidates, whose whereabouts are unknown to respondents at this stage. Further, in case of non fulfillment of one vacancy for a year, the post will remain vacant, which will not be in the interest of students as well as educational institution.
17. The Hon‟ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Balwan Singh (supra) recognised the nature of horizontal reservation and clarified that where suitable ESM candidates are not available, the posts are to be filled from the concerned vertical category candidates. It was further held that reservation is a mechanism to ensure equality and not to create rigid compartments. The Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in Upendra (supra) went a step further and held that in horizontal reservation there is no concept of "vacancy" in the same sense as in vertical reservation, and unfilled horizontal posts cannot be carried forward en masse by displacing meritorious candidates of open or reserved categories. The Hon‟ble High Court has observed as under:-
35. In horizontal reservation the candidate selected on merit who is at the bottom of the list can be adjusted provided there is a person of the special class available to substitute him. If no suitable candidate is available then there arises no occasion of displacing/adjusting the duly selected candidate from the merit list. As noted earlier, there is no concept of "vacancy". Further, it is not determinable from which category -- OC/OBC/SC/ST -- the post is to be carried forward. The posts cannot be carried forward en masse from the open category, neither can the selected candidates be displaced from the social category i.e. OBC/SC/ST.
It is only on availability of a suitable candidate belonging to the 14- O.A. No. 157/2025 and connected matters special class that he can replace the selected candidate from the merit list from the category to which the special class candidate belongs, not otherwise. In either case, we are convinced and hold that the carry forward rule of horizontal reservation in principle and application is discriminatory as it seeks to displace meritorious candidates from the select list without there being a suitable person available under the special category and that apart, the displacement of selected candidates is to take place from which social category i.e. OC/SC/ST/OBC is not determinable, which in our opinion, tantamounts to reverse discrimination and hence violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution."
(Emphasis supplied)
18. This Tribunal, while relying upon the aforesaid principles, has itself earlier taken the same view against the very same respondents in Meenakshi vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and Others, OA No. 060/269/2016 decided on 04.05.2018, wherein it was held that where no suitable candidate belonging to the categories entitled to horizontal reservation is available, such posts cannot be carried forward and must revert to the respective vertical category. It was specifically observed that when reservation is horizontal in nature and candidates of the special category are not available, the vacancy does not remain reserved and has to be filled from the same very category on the basis of merit. The ratio laid down in the said decision fully applies to the present case and fortifies the applicant‟s claim.
19. When these principles are applied to the present case, it becomes evident that the respondents‟ action of keeping one General 15- O.A. No. 157/2025 and connected matters Category post vacant under the label "Gen-ESM" is contrary to law. Even, if the respondents‟ contention that ESM horizontal reservation applies to Group „B‟ posts is assumed for argument‟s sake, the further step of carrying forward the post and denying appointment to the next General Category candidate is clearly impermissible in view of the law laid down in Saurav Yadav, Anupal Singh, Jitendra Kumar Singh and Upendra.
20. Further, the respondents themselves have not disputed that no ESM candidate qualified the written test for the post of Lecturer (PGT) Physics. The provisional merit list shows the applicant placed next in merit in the General Category. Once the special category candidate is unavailable, the law mandates that the seat must revert to the respective vertical category and be filled on merit. The respondents‟ reliance on OM dated 20.03.1987 and notification dated 15.12.1979 for carry forward is misplaced, as those instructions cannot override the constitutional interpretation given by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court on the working of horizontal reservation.
21. In O.A. No. 145/2005 (Anuradha Vs. Union of India and others), the record reveals that the applicant was placed at Sr. No. 1 in the waiting list and that out of the five candidates initially selected, one was subsequently declared ineligible. Consequently, the applicant, being next in line, became entitled to be offered the 5th seat in the General Category. This specific plea of the applicant has not been controverted by the respondents; instead, they have merely stated in their reply that one post from the General Category was kept vacant for ESM. Such a plea cannot be accepted, as the 5th seat was in fact filled by a General 16- O.A. No. 157/2025 and connected matters Category candidate and, upon that candidate being declared ineligible, the seat became vacant and could not lawfully be kept reserved or carried forward for the ESM category. Moreover, the said vacancy is occurred due to declaration of 5th rank general candidate ineligible. Had that candidate not been declared ineligible, the respondents would not have kept the post vacant for ESM. Therefore, the stand of the respondents is arbitrary. Even otherwise, as observed hereinabove, the carry forward of seats under horizontal reservation is not legally permissible.
22. In view of the foregoing discussion, we hold that the action of the respondents in keeping one General Category post of Lecturer (PGT) Physics vacant as "Gen-ESM" is illegal and unsustainable. There is no concept of carry forward of unfilled horizontal reservation vacancies in a manner that deprives a meritorious candidate of the open category. The applicant, being next in merit in the General Category, is entitled to be considered and appointed against the said post.
23. Accordingly, the action of the respondents in keeping one General Category post of Lecturer (PGT) Physics vacant as "Gen-ESM" is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the applicant for appointment to the post of Lecturer (PGT) Physics/Political Science/Punjabi/Mathematics (as the case may be) against the said General Category post in accordance with his/her merit position and if found otherwise eligible, the applicant shall be issued an appointment order within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The applicant shall be entitled to notional seniority from the date the next below candidate was appointed, but actual monetary 17- O.A. No. 157/2025 and connected matters benefits shall accrue only from the date of joining. All the Original Applications stand allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.
(ANJALI BHAWRA) (SURESH KUMAR BATRA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Dated: 28.01.2026 „mw‟