Supreme Court settles horizontal reservation for women in Madhya Pradesh Assistant Professor Selections (December 16, 2021)

LEGAL ISSUE: Whether Other Backward Class (OBC) female candidates who score higher than General Category women in the Assistant Professor selection process can be placed in the unreserved female category.

CASE TYPE: Service Law, Reservation Policy

Case Name: Sadhana Singh Dangi & Others vs. Pinki Asati & Others and other connected matters.

[Judgment Date]: December 16, 2021

Can a more meritorious candidate from a reserved category be denied a seat in the unreserved category during horizontal reservation? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in a batch of appeals concerning the selection of Assistant Professors in Madhya Pradesh. This judgment clarifies the interplay between vertical and horizontal reservations, ensuring that merit is not compromised in the process. The bench comprised of Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, S. Ravindra Bhat, and Bela M. Trivedi, with the majority opinion authored by Justice Uday Umesh Lalit.

Case Background

The Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC) issued an advertisement on December 12, 2017, for the recruitment of Assistant Professors in various disciplines. After the selection process, the MPPSC published a select list. This list was challenged before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, which directed the publication of a revised list. The revised select lists were published between August 20, 2019, and October 3, 2019. These revised lists led to fresh challenges before the High Court, primarily concerning the application of horizontal reservation for women candidates.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, after considering the submissions, framed the issue of whether OBC (Female) candidates who scored more marks than General Category women could secure seats in the unreserved female category. The High Court held that the revised select list did not correctly apply the principles of horizontal reservation. The High Court emphasized that horizontal reservation is compartmentalized and does not allow for migration based on merit. The High Court quashed the revised select list and directed the authorities to prepare a fresh list. The Supreme Court noted that similar issues were raised in cases from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and were addressed in the judgment of *Saurav Yadav & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, (2021) 4 SCC 542*.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the following legal provisions:

• Section 4(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhada Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 (the 1994 Act):
  
  “4(4) – If a person belonging to any of the categories mentioned in sub-section (2) gets selected on the basis of merit in an open competition with general candidates, he shall not be adjusted against the vacancies reserved for such category under sub-section (2).”
  
  This provision states that if a reserved category candidate is selected on merit in open competition, they should not be counted against the reserved quota.
• Rule 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Mahilaon Ke Liye Padon Ka Arakshan) Niyam, 1997 (the 1997 Rules):
  
  “3. Reservation of posts for women.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any Service rules, there shall be reserved thirty three percent of all posts in the service under the State (except Forest Department) in favour of women at the stage of direct recruitment and the said reservation shall be horizontal and compartment-wise.”
  
  Explanation. – For the purposes of this rule “horizontal and compartmentwise reservation” means reservation in each category, namely, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes and General.
  
  This rule provides for 33% horizontal reservation for women in all state services (except the Forest Department), with the reservation being applied compartment-wise in each category (SC, ST, OBC, and General).

The Court noted that the High Court interpreted these provisions to mean that horizontal reservation is compartmentalized and does not allow for migration based on merit. However, the Supreme Court clarified that this interpretation was incorrect.

Arguments

The arguments presented before the Supreme Court were as follows:

• Appellants (Candidates):
  • The appellants argued that the principles laid down in *Saurav Yadav* should apply, and the revised select list should be upheld.
  • They contended that more meritorious candidates from reserved categories should be considered against unreserved seats.
  • They argued that the High Court’s interpretation of horizontal reservation was incorrect and that the revised select list should be accepted.
• Respondents (Original Writ Petitioners):
  • The respondents argued that the “Unreserved” or “General” category should be open to all, but at the stage of horizontal reservation, consideration should be restricted to those who do not belong to social reservation categories (SCs, STs, OBCs).
  • They contended that migration from other vertical columns of social reservation should not be permitted.
  • They supported the High Court’s view that horizontal reservation is compartmentalized.
• State of Madhya Pradesh:
  • The State supported the appellants’ position, arguing that the principles of *Saurav Yadav* should be followed.
  • The State also argued that the statutory rules in this case provided additional support for their view.
• MPPSC:
  • MPPSC accepted that the candidates represented by Mr. Rungta were entitled to their seniority in terms of the revised select list.
• Mr. S.K. Rungta (representing more meritorious candidates):
  • Mr. Rungta argued that his clients were more meritorious and were part of the revised select list but were not appointed due to an interim order by the High Court.
  • He contended that his clients suffered prejudice due to delayed appointments and loss of seniority.

The innovativeness of the argument was that the respondents were trying to argue that the horizontal reservation should be applied in a compartmentalized manner, which was not accepted by the Supreme Court.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue was:

1. Whether OBC (Female) candidates who scored higher than General Category women could secure seats in the unreserved female category, and whether the principle of horizontal reservation was correctly applied by the High Court.

The sub-issue was whether the horizontal reservation should be applied in a compartmentalized manner.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Supreme Court relied on the following authorities:

The Court also considered Section 4(4) of the 1994 Act and Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules (as amended in 2000 and 2015) of Madhya Pradesh.

Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and upheld the revised select list. The Court emphasized that merit must be given precedence even while applying horizontal reservation.

The Supreme Court’s view on the authorities is as follows:

• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [CITATION]: The Court followed the principle established in this case that reserved category candidates selected on merit in open competition should not be counted against the reserved quota.
• Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. [CITATION]: The Court clarified that the observations in this case did not mean that a reserved category candidate cannot be considered in the open/general category at the stage of horizontal reservation.
• Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission [CITATION]: The Court explained that this case highlighted the distinction between vertical and horizontal reservation, but did not support the view that horizontal reservation should be compartmentalized.
• Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal v. Mamta Bisht [CITATION]: The Court clarified that this case did not support the view that a candidate selected in the General Category on her own merit should be excluded from the horizontal reservation for women.
• Saurav Yadav & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others [CITATION]: The Court followed the principles laid down in this case, which clarified the interplay of vertical and horizontal reservations.

The Court also held that the High Court’s interpretation of Section 4(4) of the 1994 Act and Rule 3 of the 1997 Rules was incorrect.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily driven by the principle that merit should be given precedence in public employment. The Court emphasized that candidates from reserved categories who are more meritorious should not be disadvantaged by a strict compartmentalization of horizontal reservation. The Court was also influenced by the need to ensure that the interpretation of reservation policies does not lead to irrational results where less meritorious candidates are selected over more meritorious ones.

The Court also considered the principle of mobility or migration, which allows candidates to move to a higher category based on merit. The Court observed that the second view, which was adopted by the High Court, would lead to a situation where less meritorious candidates would get selected over more meritorious candidates, which is against the principles of equality.

The Court also considered the fact that the candidates represented by Mr. Rungta were more meritorious and were wrongly denied appointments due to the High Court’s interim order.

Logical Reasoning

The Supreme Court considered the alternative interpretation that horizontal reservation should be strictly compartmentalized, but rejected it because it would lead to less meritorious candidates being selected over more meritorious candidates. The Court emphasized that such an interpretation would be against the principles of equality and merit.

The final decision was that the High Court’s view was incorrect, and the revised select list should be upheld. The Supreme Court held that the candidates who were more meritorious should be given their rightful place in the select list.

The reasons for the decision are as follows:

• The interpretation of horizontal reservation by the High Court was incorrect.
• Merit must be given precedence in public employment.
• More meritorious candidates from reserved categories should not be disadvantaged.
• The principle of mobility or migration should be applied.
• The need to rectify the injustice caused to more meritorious candidates.

The Supreme Court did not have a minority opinion in this case.

The implications for future cases are that horizontal reservation must be applied in a manner that does not compromise merit. The judgment clarifies that candidates from reserved categories who are more meritorious should be considered against unreserved seats, ensuring that the principles of equality and merit are upheld.

No new doctrines or legal principles were introduced in this judgment. The Court primarily applied the existing principles of reservation and merit.

The Court analyzed the arguments for and against the compartmentalized approach to horizontal reservation and rejected it. The Court emphasized that the interpretation of reservation policies should not lead to irrational results.

Key quotes from the judgment include:

• “The law laid down in Saurav Yadav is very clear that even while applying horizontal reservation, the merit must be given precedence and that if the candidates who belong to SCs, STs and OBCs have secured higher marks or are more meritorious, they must be considered against the seats meant for unreserved candidates.”
• “The High Court failed to appreciate that conceptually there would be no distinction between vertical and horizontal reservations, when it comes to the basic idea that even the candidates belonging to reserved categories can as well stake a claim to seats in unreserved categories if their merit position entitles them to do so.”
• “The observations made by the High Court in the instant case, in our view, do not lay down the correct law.”

Key Takeaways

• Merit should be given precedence even while applying horizontal reservation.
• Reserved category candidates who are more meritorious can be considered against unreserved seats.
• Horizontal reservation should not be applied in a compartmentalized manner that disadvantages more meritorious candidates.
• The judgment clarifies the application of horizontal reservation, ensuring that it does not compromise merit.
• This judgment will have implications for future cases involving horizontal reservation in public employment.

Directions

The Supreme Court gave the following directions:

1. All candidates who were at higher positions in merit but were appointed later shall be deemed to have been appointed on the earliest of the dates when their juniors or candidates at lower levels were appointed.
2. Their seniority shall be reckoned from such deemed date of appointment and not from their actual date of appointments.
3. The issue of probation for all categories of candidates shall be considered together as one single batch and the issue of probation shall not be segregated amongst the members of the batch.
4. All such candidates who were at higher levels of the revised list shall be entitled to their salaries and emoluments for the period of about seven months for which they were deprived of service.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that horizontal reservation should not be applied in a manner that compromises merit. The Supreme Court clarified that more meritorious candidates from reserved categories should be considered against unreserved seats. This judgment reaffirms and clarifies the principles laid down in *Saurav Yadav* and other previous cases, ensuring that merit is not overlooked in the application of reservation policies.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in *Sadhana Singh Dangi & Others vs. Pinki Asati & Others* clarifies the application of horizontal reservation in the context of Assistant Professor selections in Madhya Pradesh. The Court emphasized that merit should be given precedence and that more meritorious candidates from reserved categories should be considered against unreserved seats. This judgment ensures that the principles of equality and merit are upheld in public employment.

Category

Parent Category: Service Law

Child Categories: Reservation Policy, Horizontal Reservation, Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission, Assistant Professor Recruitment

Parent Category: Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhada Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994

Child Category: Section 4(4), Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon Aur Anya Pichhada Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994

Parent Category: Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Mahilaon Ke Liye Padon Ka Arakshan) Niyam, 1997

Child Category: Rule 3, Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Mahilaon Ke Liye Padon Ka Arakshan) Niyam, 1997

FAQ

Q: What is horizontal reservation?

A: Horizontal reservation is a special reservation applied across different social categories (like Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, and General). It is often used to ensure representation for women, persons with disabilities, etc.

Q: What did the Supreme Court decide about horizontal reservation in this case?

A: The Supreme Court clarified that horizontal reservation should not be applied in a way that disadvantages more meritorious candidates from reserved categories. If a reserved category candidate scores higher than a general category candidate, they should be considered for a seat in the unreserved category.

Q: Can a more meritorious OBC (Female) candidate get a seat in the Unreserved (Female) category?

A: Yes, if an OBC (Female) candidate scores higher than a General Category (Female) candidate, they are entitled to be considered for a seat in the Unreserved (Female) category.

Q: What does the term ‘compartmentalized’ mean in the context of horizontal reservation?

A: ‘Compartmentalized’ means that the horizontal reservation is applied strictly within each social category, without allowing candidates to move to other categories based on merit. The Supreme Court rejected this view.

Q: What is the implication of this judgment for future recruitments?

A: This judgment ensures that merit is given precedence in public employment. It clarifies that horizontal reservation should not be applied in a way that compromises merit and that more meritorious candidates should be given their rightful place.