Supreme Court clarifies horizontal reservation for OBC women in UP Police Constable Recruitment (2020)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 18 December 2020

Citation: (2020) INSC 947

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., S. Ravindra Bhat, J., Hrishikesh Roy, J.

Can a woman from a reserved category, who scores higher than the cut-off for the general category, be denied a position in the general category? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question regarding horizontal reservation in the context of the Uttar Pradesh Police Constable recruitment. The court clarified the rules for applying horizontal reservation, particularly for Other Backward Class (OBC) women, settling a dispute that arose from the 2013 recruitment process. This judgment ensures that merit is not overlooked when applying reservation policies.

Case Background

In 2013, the Uttar Pradesh government initiated a recruitment process for 41,610 police constable posts. After the results were declared on July 16, 2015, 3,295 vacancies remained unfilled due to the unavailability of suitable candidates. Simultaneously, a selection process for Sub-Inspectors was also underway, which led to a dispute when some candidates were disqualified for using blades and whiteners on their answer sheets.

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad initially upheld this disqualification, but the Supreme Court overturned this decision, ruling that using blades and whiteners should not be a reason for disqualification. The Supreme Court directed that those candidates who had used blades/whiteners should be given a notional selection. This led to a reworking of the selection list, adding 4,429 candidates as additional appointments.

Subsequently, the High Court directed the State to recalculate horizontal reservation vacancies. This resulted in 2,312 vacancies not being filled due to the carry-forward principle in horizontal reservation. The Supreme Court directed the State to fill these 2,312 vacancies, along with 982 other vacancies, totaling 3,294 posts, while adhering to the reservation policy. This led to the current dispute regarding the application of horizontal reservation for women candidates.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in its order dated March 16, 2016, directed the State to recalculate horizontal reservation vacancies, which led to 2,312 vacancies not being filled. This order was affirmed by a Division Bench of the same High Court. The High Court also directed that there should not be any carry-forward of vacancies of horizontal reservation to the next selection.

The State Government relied on these orders of the High Court to justify not considering the claim of OBC female candidates against the posts meant for General Category female candidates. The Supreme Court, however, clarified that it had not approved the High Court’s order and that the State’s stand was incorrect.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the following legal provisions:

• Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India: Guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment.
• Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India: Enables the State to make provisions for reservation in appointments for backward classes.
• Article 15(3) of the Constitution of India: Allows the State to make special provisions for women and children.
• Section 3(3) of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Physically Handicapped, Dependents of Freedom Fighters and Ex-Servicemen) Act, 1993: Specifies that persons selected under this Act shall be placed in appropriate categories.
  “The persons selected against the vacancies reserved under sub-section (1) shall be placed in the appropriate categories to which they belong. For example, if a selected person belongs to Scheduled Castes category he will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments; if he belongs to Scheduled Tribes category, he will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments; if he belongs to Other Backward Class of Citizens, category, he will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments. Similarly. if he belongs to open competition category, he will be placed in that category by making necessary adjustments.”
• The Uttar Pradesh Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994: Provides for reservation for social categories (SC/ST/OBCs).

The court clarified that horizontal reservations, such as those for women, are “interlocking” and cut across vertical reservations (SC/ST/OBC). The court also emphasized that the principle of merit should be upheld, and candidates from reserved categories should not be excluded from the open category if they are more meritorious.

Arguments

Applicants’ Submissions:

• The applicants, who were OBC female candidates, argued that they had secured more marks than the cut-off for the General Female category, yet they were not selected.
• They contended that the State’s action was against the principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
• They argued that the High Court’s orders, relied upon by the State, were incorrect in their interpretation of horizontal reservation.
• They emphasized that candidates from reserved categories, if meritorious, should not be excluded from the open category.

State’s Submissions:

• The State relied on the High Court’s orders, which stated that candidates from reserved categories should be adjusted only within their respective categories.
• The State argued that the OBC female category was exhausted in the first round of selection and that the subsequent selection was confined to candidates who had been disqualified for using blades/whiteners.
• The State contended that the principle of horizontal reservation does not allow for migration of reserved category candidates to the open category.

Analysis of Arguments:

The applicants emphasized the principle of merit, stating that if they scored higher than general category candidates, they should be considered for those positions. The State, on the other hand, focused on the compartmentalized nature of horizontal reservation, arguing that reserved category candidates cannot be adjusted in the open category.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issue:

1. Whether the State Government’s action of refusing to consider the claim of ‘OBC Female Category’ candidates in respect of ‘General Female Category’ seats is valid.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court followed the principles laid down in Indra Sawhney [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217]* and other cases, clarifying the nature of horizontal and vertical reservations.
• The Court approved the views of the High Courts of Rajasthan, Bombay, Uttarakhand, and Gujarat, which allowed for the migration of reserved category candidates to the open category based on merit.
• The Court overruled the views of the High Courts of Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh, which restricted the adjustment of reserved category candidates to their respective categories.
• The Court emphasized that the observations in Anil Kumar Gupta [(1995) 5 SCC 173]* and Rajesh Kumar Daria [(2007) 8 SCC 785]* were taken out of context by the High Courts of Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh.
• The Court clarified that the decision in Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal vs. Mamta Bisht [(2010) 12 SCC 204]* did not support the second view.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the principle of merit and equality. The Court emphasized that:

• Merit should be the primary consideration for selection in public employment.
• Horizontal reservations should not be applied in a manner that excludes more meritorious candidates from reserved categories from open category seats.
• The open category is not a quota and is open to all candidates based on merit, irrespective of their social category.
• The Court rejected the view that the open category is reserved for candidates other than those from vertical reservation categories.

The Court’s reasoning was also influenced by the need to ensure that the reservation policy is implemented correctly, without causing injustice to any candidate. The Court noted that the second view, adopted by the High Courts of Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh, would lead to irrational results where less meritorious candidates might get selected over more meritorious candidates.

Fact:Law Ratio

The court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal principles and precedents, with a focus on ensuring that the application of law is fair and just.

Logical Reasoning

Decision

The Supreme Court held that the State of Uttar Pradesh had incorrectly applied the rules of horizontal reservation. The Court emphasized that:

• Merit should be the primary consideration for selection in public employment.
• Candidates from reserved categories, if meritorious, should not be excluded from the open category.
• Horizontal reservations should not be applied in a manner that excludes more meritorious candidates from reserved categories from open category seats.

The Court rejected the view that the open category is reserved for candidates other than those coming from vertical reservation categories.

The Supreme Court quoted from earlier judgments to support its decision. For instance:

“Horizontal reservations cut across the vertical reservations – what is called interlocking reservations.”

“Thus women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal reservation for women.”

“The open category is not a ‘quota’, but rather available to all women and men alike.”

The Court also clarified that its decision in Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal vs. Mamta Bisht [(2010) 12 SCC 204]* was misunderstood and did not support the view that reserved category candidates cannot be considered for open category seats.

The Court also rejected the second view, which was based on the premise that after the initial allocation of Open General Category seats is completed, the claim or right of reserved category candidates to be admitted in Open General Category seats on the basis of their own merit stands exhausted and they can only be considered against their respective column of vertical reservation.

The Court held that such a view will lead to irrational results and will also result in acceptance of a postulate that Open / General seats are reserved for candidates other than those coming from vertical reservation categories.

Key Takeaways

• OBC female candidates who scored more than 274.8928 marks (the cut-off for General Female category) must be offered employment as constables in the UP Police.
• The employment of General Category females with a cut-off at 274.8928 will not be affected by this judgment.
• The State must adhere to the principle of merit while applying horizontal reservation.
• The open category is not a quota and is open to all candidates based on merit, irrespective of their social category.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions to the State of Uttar Pradesh:

• All candidates from the ‘OBC Female Category’ who secured more than 274.8928 marks must be offered employment as Constables in Uttar Pradesh Police.
• Appropriate letters must be sent to the concerned candidates within four weeks.
• Candidates accepting the offer must communicate within two weeks.
• Codal and other formalities must be completed within three weeks of receiving acceptance.
• Letters of appointment must be issued within a week thereafter, and candidates must be given appropriate postings.
• The employment of these candidates will be reckoned from the date the appointment orders are issued for all purposes including seniority and pay fixation.
• The employment of General Category Females with cut off at 274.8928 will not be affected.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases of horizontal reservation, candidates from reserved categories who are more meritorious than the last selected candidate in the open category cannot be excluded from the open category. This judgment clarifies that horizontal reservations do not operate as a bar for meritorious reserved category candidates to be considered in the open category. This ruling reinforces the principle of merit and ensures that reservation policies are not applied in a manner that leads to injustice and irrational outcomes.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Saurav Yadav & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. clarifies the application of horizontal reservation, particularly for OBC women in public employment. The Court held that meritorious candidates from reserved categories should not be excluded from open category seats and directed the State of Uttar Pradesh to offer employment to OBC female candidates who scored higher than the general category cut-off. This decision upholds the principle of merit and ensures a fair application of reservation policies.