Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.29 seconds)Section 114 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 [Entire Act]
The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Indra Sawhney Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. Etc. on 16 November, 1992
"13. The reservation provided for under the Act in favour of
"persons with disabilities" being one that falls within the
purview of Article 16(1) of the Constitution, there cannot be
any doubt to the proposition that the said reservation has
to be given effect to only horizontally. This aspect has been
clarified by the Apex Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union
of India [(1992) Supp 3 SCC 217]. In addition, in
the said case, the Apex Court has also laid down the
procedure for effecting such reservations. The relevant
portion of paragraph 812 of the judgment reads thus:
Rajesh Kumar Daria vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission & ... on 18 July, 2007
"18. Now, coming to the correctness of the procedure
prescribed by the revised notification for filling up the
seats, it was wrong to direct the fifteen per cent special
reservation seats to be filled up first and then take up
the OC (merit) quota (followed by filling of OBC, SC and
ST quotas). The proper and correct course is to first fill
up the OC quota (50%) on the basis of merit; then fill
up each of the social reservation quotas, i.e., SC, ST
and BC; the third step would be to find out how many
19
RP No.643 of 2025 and
410 of 2023 2025:KER:64729
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 their
respective social reservation categories by deleting the
corresponding number of candidates therefrom. (If,
however, it is a case of compartmentalised 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 per cent in
favour of special categories, overall, may be satisfied
or may not be satisfied.) Because the revised
notification provided for a different method of filling the
seats, it has contributed partly to the unfortunate
situation where the entire special reservation quota has
been allocated and adjusted almost exclusively against
the OC quota." (Underline supplied)
In the context of special reservation for women provided for
in the Rajasthan Judicial Service, the Apex Court has
elaborated further the procedure aforesaid in Rajesh
Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service
Commission [(2007) 8 SCC 785] . Paragraph 9 of the
said judgment reads thus:
Article 16 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Anil Kumar Gupta, Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors on 28 July, 1995
(Underline supplied)
In the context of examining the correctness of the
procedure followed by the Government of Uttar Pradesh and
its authorities in the matter of effecting special reservations
in favour of women for admission to medical courses, the
Apex Court has elaborated and explained the procedure
aforesaid in Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. [(1995)
5 SCC 173]. Paragraph 18 of the said judgment reads thus:
Union Of India And Ors. Etc vs Virpal Singh Chauhan Etc on 10 October, 1995
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 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.
[Vide Indra Sawhney, R.K.Sabharwal v. State of
Punjab, Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan and
Ritesh R.Sah v. Dr. Y.L.Yamul]. But the aforesaid
principle applicable to vertical (social) reservations will
not apply to horizontal (special) reservations. Where a
special reservation for women is provided within the
social reservation for Scheduled Castes, the proper
21
RP No.643 of 2025 and
410 of 2023 2025:KER:64729
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. 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: