Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(3) The Writ Petition was at the instance of respondents no.1, 2 and 3 placed in the waiting list at S.No.88, 87 and 86 respectively for the post of Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari. The grievance raised by them was against the action of respondents-State of M.P. and the M.P. Public Service Commission in migrating the incumbent of Other Backward Class: Physically Handicapped: Orthopaedics (OBC PHO) to the post earmarked in favour of unreserved Physically Handicapped: Orthopaedics (UN PHO). The challenge was on the ground that it is impermissible in law to treat horizontal reservation as vertical and migrate incumbent who are beneficiary of horizontal reservation to unreserved post carrying horizontal reservation.

(W.A.No.414/2017, Surendra Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and others) and (W.A.No.940/2017, Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Dr. Nabhikishor Chaudari and others) (4) That vide Notification No.02/Parkisha/2013/23.9.2013, 722 posts of Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari was advertised by the Commission. Of these 317 posts were unreserved; whereas 186 posts were reserved in favour of Scheduled Tribe, 131 posts for Scheduled Caste and 88 posts in favour of Other Backward Classes. Out of these by way of horizontal reservation 43 posts were earmarked in respective category for physically handicapped. These 43 posts were further sub-divided in favour of different handicapped categories such as Orthopedics, Ophthalmology etc. In favour of Physically Handicapped (Orthopedics) 13 posts were unreserved, 7 posts were reserved for Scheduled Tribe, 6 posts were reserved for Scheduled Caste and 3 posts were reserved for the O.B.C. (5) In the results which were declared in November, 2015 (27.11.2015) respondents no.6 to 10 (respondents no.4 to 8 in writ petition) who had competed in OBC PH (O) having obtained 301, 307, 303, 296, 292 marks respectively and were at S.No.343, 380, 416, 447 and 464 of the merit-list respectively were accommodated against the posts (W.A.No.414/2017, Surendra Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and others) and (W.A.No.940/2017, Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Dr. Nabhikishor Chaudari and others) earmarked for UR PH (O) and the respondents no.1,2 and 3 (the petitioners in the writ petition) were placed in the wait list at S.No.88, 87 and 86 respectively. (6) Pertinent it is to note at this stage that the appellant in Writ Appeal No.414/2017 who also competed in OBC PH (O) category obtained 244 marks and was at S.No.1213 of merit list.

"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 (W.A.No.414/2017, Surendra Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and others) and (W.A.No.940/2017, Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Dr. Nabhikishor Chaudari and others) 16] can be referred to as horizontal reservations. Horizontal reservations cut across the vertical reservations that 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 this quota will be placed in the appropriate category; if he belongs to S.C. category he will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments; similarly, if he belongs to open competition (O.C.) category, he will be placed in that category by making necessary 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. This is how these reservations are worked out in several States and there is no reason not to continue that procedure.
"7-8. The second relates to the difference between the nature of vertical reservation and (W.A.No.414/2017, Surendra Singh Yadav Vs. State of M.P. and others) and (W.A.No.940/2017, Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Dr. Nabhikishor Chaudari and others) horizontal reservation. Social reservations in favour of SC, ST and OBC under Art. 16(4) are 'vertical reservations.' Special reservations in favour of physically handicapped, women etc., under Art. 16(1) or 15(3) are 'horizontal reservations.' Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a backward class under Art. 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 v. State of Punjab (1995 (2) SCC 745); Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauvan (1995 (6) SCC 684) and Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y. L. Yamul (1996 (3) SCC