Punjab-Haryana High Court
Virpal Kaur And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 1 May, 2013
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12222 OF 2012 :{ 1 }:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
DATE OF DECISION: MAY 01, 2013
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12222 OF 2012
Virpal Kaur and others
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8042 OF 2012
Ramjan Khan and others
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12355 OF 2012
Gurmeet Kaur and others
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12459 OF 2012
Archana Sudha and others
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.13329 OF 2012
Kamaljit Kaur
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
The State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12222 OF 2012 :{ 2 }:
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.14558 OF 2012
Anju Gandhi and others
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18204 OF 2012
Surjit Singh and others
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.19931 OF 2012
Rupinder Kaur and others
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Punjab and others
....Respondents
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.20701 OF 2012
Manjit Singh and others
.....Petitioners
VERSUS
The State of Punjab and another
....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
*********
Present: Mr. Amit Chopra, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
(In Civil Writ Petition Nos.12222, 12355, 14558, 19931 of
2012).
Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
(In Civil Writ Petition No.12459 of 2012)
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12222 OF 2012 :{ 3 }:
Mr. B.P.S.Virk, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
(In Civil Writ Petition No.13329 of 2012).
Mr. P. S. Cheema, Advocate for
Mr. J. S. Thind, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
(In Civil Writ Petition No.18204 of 2012).
Mr. Inderpal Singh Mattewal, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
(In Civil Writ Petition No.20701 of 2012).
Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG, Punjab,
for the State.
Mr. S. K. Sharma Budhladawale, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
(in CWP No.8042 of 2012)
(for the added respondent Nos.4 to 15 in CWP No.12222
of 2012).
Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr.Advocate with
Mr. Vikas Sharma, Advocate.
*****
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
By this order, I propose to dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.12222, 8042, 12355, 12459, 13329, 14558, 18204, 19931 and 20701 of 2012, as common questions of fact and law are involved. Counsel for the parties have also consented for disposal of these writ petitions by a common order.
The petitioners in these writ petition are female candidates and have approached this Court with a grievance that they have not been given appointments against the 50% posts of Physical Training Instructor (hereinafter referred to as "PTI") reserved for them, as per the advertisement issued by the respondents. For CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12222 OF 2012 :{ 4 }:
the sake of convenience, the facts have been taken from Civil Writ Petition No.12222 of 2012.
The Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (hereinafter referred to as "CDEC") issued an advertisement on behalf of the Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Education (respondent No.1), which was published in various newspapers on 26.10.2006, inviting applications for recruitment of various categories in the Punjab Education Department, including 175 posts of PTIs. Out of these posts, 50% were kept apart for the women candidates in each category i.e. general and reserved.
Wherever there were odd number of posts falling in the category, the said vacancies were to be filled up on the basis of the candidates possessing higher merit irrespective of their sex. A corrigendum dated 8.11.2006 was thereafter issued by the Secretary to Government of Punjab, increasing the number of posts of PTIs to
849. The rules and conditions for recruitment remained unchanged. The last date for receipt of online applications for the posts of PTIs stood extended to 11.11.2006 till 5 P.M. The petitioners submitted their application forms, which were duly accepted by the respondents. Petitioner Nos.1,3,4,5,6,9,10 and 11 applied in the general category, petitioner Nos.2 and 7 in the backward class category, petitioner No.8 in ex-servicemen female category and petitioner No.12 in the category of scheduled caste (R&O). They were allotted registration numbers.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12222 OF 2012 :{ 5 }:
Since the petitioners were possessing qualifications of B.P.E./B.P.Ed./D.P.E, they were not considered eligible for appointment on the ground that they possessed higher qualification than the one advertised i.e. Certificate in Physical Education. Some of the similar candidates as the petitioners, who possessed the similar qualifications, challenged this action of the respondents. One of such writs was Civil Writ Petition No.451 of 2008, Manjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab and others. There being divergent view taken by the High Court in different writ petitions, the matter was referred to a Larger Bench to consider the question of eligibility of the candidate, who was having higher qualification than the one advertised. A Full Bench was constituted, which, vide its judgement dated 5.2.2010, held that the candidate possessing higher qualification in the same line cannot be excluded from the zone of consideration. Denying consideration to a candidate having better and higher qualification in the same line and discipline would amount to breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The reference was accordingly answered and it was concluded that the candidate possessing higher qualification in the same line, would be entitled to the consideration for selection and cannot be excluded. It is a different matter that he/she may not be entitled to any additional waitage for higher qualification, but cannot be denied consideration at par with a candidate possessing minimum qualified qualification. The writ petitions were directed to be placed before a Single Judge for CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12222 OF 2012 :{ 6 }:
decision on merits. Accordingly, the writ petitions were disposed of by this Court in the light of the Full Bench decision, directing the respondents to consider the petitioners, possessing higher qualifications, as eligible for appointment to the posts of PTIs in the Education Department. A direction was also issued to complete this exercise within a period of two months.
The judgement having not been complied with within the stipulated period, contempt petitions were preferred by the petitioners. During the pendency of the contempt petitions, a public notice was issued by the respondents on 22.6.2011 (Annexure P-5), vide which the candidates possessing higher qualification like the petitioners were called for counselling from 6.7.2011 to 11.7.2011. After counselling, a fresh merit list of 849 posts of PTIs was published on the website of respondent Nos.1 and 2, where the posts of PTIs were bifurcated in the ratio of 50:50 between men and women in the general category as well as reserved categories. The contempt petitions came up for hearing on 3.4.2012, wherein a categoric statement was made before this Court by the respondents that revised merit list of candidates for appointment to the posts of PTIs, as directed by the Full Bench, has been displayed on the website of the Department. An undertaking was also given that the process to offer appointments to the candidates higher in order of merit shall commence within one week of the receipt of certified copy of the order and the process, in any case, shall be completed latest CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12222 OF 2012 :{ 7 }:
by 1.6.2012.
The names of the petitioners, who are female candidates, were included in the merit list, which was displayed on the website of the respondents. Out of 849 posts, 425 posts were meant for general category. These posts were further divided between male and female and each of these categories got a share of 212 posts. Similar was the position with regard to the reserved categories as well.
A Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.12275 of 2000 (Neelam Rani Vs. State of Punjab and others), held in its judgement dated 8.1.2010, Annexure P-8, that women cannot be excluded from competing against the posts specified to be filled up from amongst the men but vice-versa was not permissible. The effect thereof would be that women, who had secured more marks in the merit than the male candidates, have to be given appointment and such number of men candidates would stand excluded from the merit list. For giving effect to this, a combined merit list of all candidates is required to be prepared and if the number of female candidates to the extent of posts reserved for them are not selected, then women lower in merit would be selected to the extent of posts left vacant out of the reserved posts for them, thus, fulfilling the requisite posts meant for women candidates. The men candidates, who may have higher merit than the female candidates, would have to give way to the female candidates upto the number of posts reserved for them. The vice-versa could not be done i.e. There CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12222 OF 2012 :{ 8 }:
is no reservation for the male candidates and selection of the female candidates could be more than 50% posts reserved for them depending upon the merit.
The judgement of this Court in Neelam Rani's case (supra) has not been understood by the official respondents in its true perspective and they have prepared a combined merit list of all the candidates i.e. male and female and have not granted the requisite 50% reservation for the female candidates. The combined merit list dated 28.6.2012, which has been displayed on the website of official respondent Nos.1 and 2, showed that number of male candidates are much more than the female candidates and, thus, denying their requisite number of 50% reservation to the female candidates as per the advertisement, resulting in excluding the petitioners from the select list, which, the petitioners contend, is not sustainable and deserves to be set-aside. A prayer has, thus, been made for directing the respondents to offer appointments to the female candidates against the 50% quota meant for them, by modifying the merit list as per the law laid down by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgements, as has been referred to in Neelam Rani's case (supra).
Reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents, wherein reference has been made to the order dated 26.8.2011, Annexure R-1, passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Neelam Rani's case (supra), where an application for clarification CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12222 OF 2012 :{ 9 }:
of the order dated 8.1.2010, was sought. It has been stated that the Division Bench has held that the judgement shall be operative prospectively and since the advertisement in question has been issued prior to the passing of the judgement dated 8.1.2010, the said judgement would not be applicable in toto to the claim of the petitioners. It has been pleaded that there being horizontal reservation for woman candidates in recruitment, the petitioners are not entitled to the claim, as has been made in the present writ petition. Assertion is, therefore, made for dismissal of the writ petition, being devoid of merit.
Counsel for the parties have made their submissions on the basis of the pleadings referred to above and have asserted that the claims made by the parties be accepted as per their respective stand.
I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and with their assistance have gone through the records of the case.
The facts, as have been stated above, are not disputed. The only question, which requires to be decided in this bunch of writ petitions, is the extent to which female candidates would be entitled to appointment to the posts of PTIs in the light of the fact that in the advertisement 50% posts have been kept reserved for the females. If put in a different way, the present writ petitions would require the understanding of the Division Bench judgement of this Court in CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12222 OF 2012 :{ 10 }:
Neelam Rani's case (supra) and the order dated 26.8.2011, Annexure R-2, passed by the same Bench in C.M. No.504 of 2011 in the same case.
In Neelam Rani's case (supra), the creation of separate cadre for male masters, lecturers and headmasters under the Punjab State Education Class III (School Cadre) Service Rules, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), was challenged on the principle that there could be no reservation for the male category and, therefore, providing for 50% posts to be filled by the male candidates by creating a separate cadre, would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. On consideration, the Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 8.1.2011, came to the conclusion that there can in fact be no reservation for the male category and the said rule was otherwise found to be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India but the Court proceeded to read down Rule 3 and Appendix A of the Rules to mean that the posts other than the posts meant for female candidates are required to be filled up on the basis of merit without any classification on the basis of sex. The words "Headmaster, Lecturer (Male) and Masters" wherever they appeared in the rules will include the persons of both sexes. It was further held that the principle laid down in this judgement shall be applied prospectively and all the previous appointments shall not be reopened or can be said to be invalid on the basis of law laid down by this judgement. All CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12222 OF 2012 :{ 11 }:
future appointments were directed to be made by applying this principle on the basis of merit in the manner discussed in the earlier part of the judgement.
An application i.e. C.M. No.5408 of 2011 was preferred by the State of Punjab for clarification of the order dated 8.1.2010, so as to permit the State to continue with the process of issuance of appointment letters in pursuance to the advertisement dated 5.9.2007 issued for filling up 9998 posts of E.T.T Teachers. Said advertisement became subject matter of challenge before this Court and in terms of liberty granted, 8865 teachers were appointed.
Remaining 1133 posts were ordered not to be filled up without the approval of this Court, which was passed on 28.5.2008. Civil Writ Petition No.6801 of 2008 was decided on 20.4.2010 and the challenge to grant of 5 marks for rural area schools was declined. After the said decision, 567 candidates have been given appointment letters. The contention, thus, was raised by the State of Punjab that said 567 candidates were selected prior to the order passed by this Court on 8.1.2010, whereby the reservation of posts of the male has been found to be not sustainable and, therefore, the order dated 8.1.2010 requires modification so as to allow the State to appoint these 567 candidates. This stand of the State was repelled by this Court by stating as follows:-
"We do not find that the order passed by this Court requires any clarification. While deciding the legality of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12222 OF 2012 :{ 12 }:
the Punjab State Education Class-III (Schools Cadre) Services Rules, 1978 (for short the 'Rules') and the earlier Rules, it was held to the following effect: - ''It is since the year 1955, Rules prescribe separate cadre of men and women. Such cadres have been found to be not tenable. Therefore, principles laid down in this judgment shall be applied prospectively. All the previous appointments shall not be reopened or can be said to be invalid on the basis of law declared by this judgment but all future appointments shall be made on the basis of merit in the manner discussed above.
The petitioners who were initially appointed on merit will be adjusted in the cadre from the date of initial appointment and shall be entitled to pay and allowances and seniority from the dates of their initial appointment with any break in service as leave of kind due.'' This Court has found the Rules itself as illegal. But to avoid complications in the implementation of such judgment with the retrospective effect, the judgment was given prospective effect. The order is clear and categorical that all future appointments are to be made on the basis of merit. Therefore, after the order dated 8.1.2010, all appointments shall be made only in terms of the directions given by this Court. New rights cannot CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12222 OF 2012 :{ 13 }:
be created on the basis of the selection process initiated earlier. Though, the selection process was initiated prior to the order passed by this Court, but the fact remains that appointments are being made after the order passed by this Court on 8.1.2010.
We find that the application is fully misconceived and the same is dismissed accordingly."
The above reproduced order clearly spells out that any appointment to be made after the order dated 8.1.2010, would have to fulfill the mandate of the law as laid down in Neelam Rani's case (supra), which states that there shall be no reservation for the male candidates but reservation for female candidates is permissible and the seats have to be filled up from the female category as per the reservation irrespective of the combined merit list of the candidates.
The stand of the respondents in the present writ petition, thus, is also misconceived.
The law, as has been laid down in Neelam Rani's case (supra), has to be, thus, implemented in the case in hand while making appointments to the posts of PTI Teachers, filling up 50% of the posts of female category candidates out of the advertised posts in each category i.e. General as well as reserved categories. The law, as has been laid down in Neelam Rani's case (supra) reads as follow:-
"Clause (3) of Article 15 of the Constitution empowers the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12222 OF 2012 :{ 14 }:
State Government to make special provision for women and children to uplift their economic and social status. Therefore, fixing posts for women per se cannot be said to be violative of either Article 15 or 16 of the Constitution of India. Such reservation is a horizontal reservation and not vertical reservation as in the Rules. The horizontal reservation for women is in tune with the constitutional mandate and not the vertical reservation. Therefore, creation of vertical reservation for women is not sustainable.
The policy decision of the State Government that girl students studying in exclusively girls schools should be taught by women teachers can not be said to bad. In fact, the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners is that such reservation is permissible and justified in view of Article 15(3) of the Constitution. Therefore specified number of posts in exclusive girl's schools can be filled from amongst the women candidates. Such policy decision cannot be said to unjustified. However, whether the extent of number of posts reserved for women is justified or not or it violates the other provisions of the Constitution has not been examined as no such argument was raised before us.
However, in respect of the posts which are said to be CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12222 OF 2012 :{ 15 }:
meant for men category, we are of the opinion that women cannot be excluded from competing against the posts specified to be filled up from amongst men. Neither Article 15 nor Article 16 contemplates reservation of posts in favour of men. Such posts are required to be filled in on the basis of merit alone and if on the basis of merit women are meritorious, they are entitled to be appointed against the posts described as reserved for men to the extent of posts meant for women.
As per the judgments mentioned above, a combined merit list of all the candidates is required to be prepared. If on such merit, women candidate are not selected to the extent of posts reserved for them, only then women lower in merit will be selected and appointed to fill up the requisite posts meant for such women candidates. Such course alone will be an act of horizontal reservation and in accordance with the mandate of Articles 14 to 16 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, we read down Rule 3 and the Appendix A to mean that posts other than the posts meant for female candidates are required to be filled up on the basis of merit without any classification on the basis of sex. Thus the words - Headmaster, Lecturer (Male) and Masters wherever they appear in the Rules will include the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12222 OF 2012 :{ 16 }:
persons of both sexes. However, such declaration of law is without examining the extent of reservation in favour of women and that whether such extent of reservation violates any law.
It is since the year 1955, Rules prescribe separate cadre of men and women. Such cadres have been found to be not tenable. Therefore, principles laid down in this judgment shall be applied prospectively. All the previous appointments shall not be reopened or can be said to be invalid on the basis of law declared by this judgment but all future appointments shall be made on the basis of merit in the manner discussed above."
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria Versus Rajasthan Public Service Commission and others, AIR 2007 SC 3127, has dealt with the issue with regard to claim of employment, which is based on reservation, which can be termed as special reservation as contrasted from social reservation provided for under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India. While dealing with the reservation provision relating to women in different categories, reference has been made to earlier judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and has been held as follows :
"5. Before examining whether the reservation provision relating to women, had been correctly applied, it will be advantageous to refer to the nature of horizontal CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12222 OF 2012 :{ 17 }:
reservation and the manner of its application. In Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India [1992 Supp.(3) SCC 217], the principle of horizontal reservation was explained thus (para 812) :
".......all reservations are not of the same nature. There are two types of reservations, which may, for the sake of convenience, be referred to as 'vertical reservations' and 'horizontal reservations'. The reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes [(under Article 16(4)] may be called vertical reservations whereas reservations in favour of physically handicapped (under clause (1) of Article 16] can be referred to as horizontal reservations. Horizontal reservations cut across the vertical reservations - what is called interlocking reservations. To be more precise, suppose 3% of the vacancies are reserved in favour of physically handicapped persons; this would be a reservation relatable to clause (1) of Article 16. The persons selected against the quota will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments; similarly, if he belongs to open competition (OC) category, he will be placed in that category by making necessary CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12222 OF 2012 :{ 18 }:
adjustments. Even after providing for these
horizontal reservations, the percentage of
reservations in favour of backward class of citizens remains - and should remain - the same."
A special provision for women made under Article 15(3), in respect of employment, is a special reservation as contrasted from the social reservation under Article 16 (4). The method of implementing special reservation, which is a horizontal reservation, cutting across vertical reservations, was explained by this Court in Anil Kumar Gupta vs. State of U.P. [1995 (5) SCC 173] thus :
" ........... The proper and correct course is to first fill up the Open Competition quota (50%) on the basis of merit; then fill up each of the social reservation quotas, i.e., S.C., S.T. and B.C; the third step would be to find out how many candidates belonging to special reservations have been selected on the above basis. If the quota fixed for horizontal reservations is already satisfied - in case it is an overall horizontal reservation - no further question arises. But if it is not so satisfied, the requisite number of special reservation candidates shall have to be taken and adjusted/accommodated against CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12222 OF 2012 :{ 19 }:
their respective social reservation categories by deleting the corresponding number of candidates therefrom. (If, however, it is a case of compartmentalized horizontal reservation, then the process of verification and adjustment/ accommodation as stated above should be applied separately to each of the vertical reservations. In such a case, the reservation of fifteen percent in favour of special categories, overall, may be satisfied or may not be satisfied.) [Emphasis supplied]"
6. We may also refer to two related aspects before considering the facts of this case. The first is about the description of horizontal reservation. For example, if there are 200 vacancies and 15% is the vertical reservation for SC and 30% is the horizontal reservation for women, the proper description of the number of posts reserved for SC, should be : "For SC : 30 posts, of which 9 posts are for women". We find that many a time this is wrongly described thus : "For SC : 21 posts for men and 9 posts for women, in all 30 posts". Obviously, there is, and there can be, no reservation category of 'male' or 'men'. 7-8. The second relates to the difference between the nature of vertical reservation and horizontal reservation.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12222 OF 2012 :{ 20 }:
Social reservations in favour of SC, ST and OBC under Article 16(4) are 'vertical reservations'. Special reservations in favour of physically handicapped, women etc., under Articles 16(1) or 15(3) are 'horizontal reservations'. 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 numbers will not be counted against the quota reserved for the 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 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. [Vide - Indira Sawhney (Supra), R. K. Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab (1995 (2) SCC 745), Union of India vs. Virpal Singh Chauvan CWP No. 11047 of 2010 and connected cases -16- (1995 (6) SCC 684 and Ritesh R. Sah vs. Dr. Y. L.Yamul (1996 (3) SCC 253)]. But the aforesaid principle applicable to vertical (social) reservations will not apply to horizontal CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12222 OF 2012 :{ 21 }:
(special) reservations. 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 Castes-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. To this extent, horizontal (special) reservation differs from vertical (social) reservation. Thus women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal reservation for women. Let us illustrate by an example :
If 19 posts are reserved for SCs (of which the quota for women is four), 19 SC candidates shall have to be first listed in accordance with merit, from out of the successful eligible candidates. If such list of 19 candidates contains four SC women candidates, then there is no need to disturb the list by including any further SC women CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12222 OF 2012 :{ 22 }:
candidate. On the other hand, if the list of 19 SC candidates contains only two woman candidates, then the next two SC woman candidates in accordance with merit, will have to be included in the list and corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of such list shall have to be deleted, so as to ensure that the final 19 selected SC candidates contain four women SC candidates. [But if the list of 19 SC candidates contains more than four women candidates, selected on own merit, all of them will continue in the list and there is no question of deleting the excess women candidate on the ground that 'SC-women' have been selected in excess of the prescribed internal quota of four.]"
In the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the principle, therefore, is clear, according to which, first common merit list of the selection has to be prepared. Out of this list, the unreserved posts be first filled on the basis of pure merit. The second step would be to fill up posts reserved for S.C., S.T. and B.C. (social reservation/vertical reservation). The third step would be to find out the number of candidates belonging to special reservation category/horizontal reservation (women, handicapped, ex- servicemen, freedom fighters etc.), who have been selected on the above basis. In case the quota fixed for horizontal reservation stands filled, no further steps are required to be taken. But if the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12222 OF 2012 :{ 23 }:
quota is not exhausted, the requisite number of horizontal reservation category candidates shall have to be taken and accommodated against the respective vertical reservation categories by deleting the corresponding number of candidates of that particular category. But in a case of compartmentalized horizontal reservation, this process, as mentioned above, should be applied separately to each vertical reservation.
Since in the present case, the issue is with regard to special/horizontal reservation for women, if the number of women in list(s) prepared as above is equal to or more than the special reservation quota, then there is no need for further selection towards the special reservation quota of women. If there is a shortfall, the requisite number of women candidates of that particular category shall have to be taken by deleting corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of the list relating to that category. This principle is applicable for the horizontal reservation for women, which has been applied by this Court in Neelam Rani's case (supra) and, therefore, the claim of the petitioners deserve to be considered and decided accordingly.
These writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the respondents to give effect to the judgement passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Neelam Rani's case (supra), as has been explained above. This exercise be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.12222 OF 2012 :{ 24 }:
In case the petitioners fall within the selected candidates, appointment letters be issued to them forthwith.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the connected files.
May 01, 2013 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) khurmi JUDGE