Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.35 seconds)Saurav Yadav vs The State Of Uttar Pradesh on 18 December, 2020
32. This principle has been indicated by this Court in
Saurav Yadav12 (supra) in para 60 therefore, wherein it
12
(2021) 4 SCC 542
Page 22 of 39
was held that 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.
Indra Sawhney Etc. Etc vs Union Of India And Others, Etc. Etc. on 16 November, 1992
60. Horizontal reservations on the other hand, by their
nature, are not inviolate pools or carved in stone. They are
9
(1992) Supp (3) 217
10
(2021) 4 SCC 542
Page 15 of 39
premised on their overlaps and are “interlocking”
reservations [ The expression used by B.P. Jeevan Reddy,
J., in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC
217: 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1.] . 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 para 21.3. 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.
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Deepa E.V vs Union Of India And Ors on 6 April, 2017
47. Thus, a reserved PWD-LV candidate being offered
an appointment against an Unreserved PWD-LV
vacancy/post must not have availed any relaxation in
the eligibility criteria stipulated for the Unreserved PWD-
LV category. If he had availed such a relaxation, he
certainly cannot be considered to be a qualified
candidate qua the unreserved post, as has been
explained by this Court in Deepa E.V. vs. Union of
India16, reiterated in Union of India vs. Sajib Roy17.
Neil Aurelio Nunes vs Union Of India on 20 January, 2022
Providing reservation of appointment for posts in
favour of any backward class of citizens is guaranteed
under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, and it has
also been well settled that the reservation is in the
nature of affirmative action and is not an exception to
the principle of equality. Such special provisions have
been made to provide an equitable setting to level up the
weaker sections so that the real or factual equality can
Page 35 of 39
be ensured and does not remain illusory as observed by
this Court in Neil Aurelio Nunes (OBC reservation) vs.
Union of India15. Further in respect of reserved
categories, the law permits relaxation of certain
qualifications for appointment, however, subject to the
condition that such relaxation does not destroy the
essential standard requirements, for example, as
regards requirements relating to age or experience etc.
Such relaxations have been provided to enable such
classes to catch up with the rest of the society. Such
relaxation, however, will be confined for the purposes of
appointment within the reserved categories and cannot
be made applicable for appointment under
Unreserved/Open category for the reason is that in
respect of Unreserved/Open category, the essential
15
(2022) 4 SCC 1
Page 36 of 39
qualifications or conditions required for recruitment
must be equal in all respects and merit being the only
decisive factor.
Anil Kumar Gupta, Etc vs State Of Uttar Pradesh And Ors on 28 July, 1995
In the horizontal reservation there is also the
concept of overall reservation and compartmental
horizontal, which has been explained in Anil Kumar
Gupta11 (supra) in the following manner:
Union Of India vs Sajib Roy on 23 January, 2020
47. Thus, a reserved PWD-LV candidate being offered
an appointment against an Unreserved PWD-LV
vacancy/post must not have availed any relaxation in
the eligibility criteria stipulated for the Unreserved PWD-
LV category. If he had availed such a relaxation, he
certainly cannot be considered to be a qualified
candidate qua the unreserved post, as has been
explained by this Court in Deepa E.V. vs. Union of
India16, reiterated in Union of India vs. Sajib Roy17.
1