Meritorious Reserved Candidates Can Claim Unreserved Horizontal Vacancies Based On Merit: Supreme Court

"Merit is the co-attendant and inseparable attribute of appointment to any post under the 'Unreserved' category, " Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated April 7, 2026, held that a reserved category candidate who possesses better merit can legitimately claim a horizontal vacancy earmarked under the Unreserved (UR) category. While dealing with a dispute over a Persons with Disabilities (PWD) quota, a bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed that the unreserved category provides an "open field or pool meant for the world at large," firmly establishing that the principle of migration applies equally to horizontal reservations.

The West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. initiated a recruitment drive where one post was horizontally reserved for an Unreserved PWD-Low Vision (LV) candidate. An OBC-A candidate possessing a PWD-LV certificate scored higher marks than an unreserved PWD-LV candidate and was subsequently offered the appointment by the employer. The unreserved candidate successfully challenged this before a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, which ruled that the vacancy must go to the unreserved candidate if available, prompting the present appeal.

The primary question before the Supreme Court was whether a horizontally reserved vacancy falling under the Unreserved category could be filled by a more meritorious candidate from a reserved social category. The court was also called upon to determine the correct interpretation of a recruitment clause which stipulated that unreserved horizontal vacancies would be filled by other categories only in the event of the non-availability of an unreserved candidate.

Unreserved Category Is Not A Separate Social Class

The Supreme Court clarified the fundamental nature of the general pool, stating that the Unreserved or Open category does not refer to any specific communal or social grouping like SC, ST, or OBC. The bench explained that any post falling under the open category is meant for the world at large and is available to all candidates irrespective of their social background. The court firmly rejected the Division Bench's underlying assumption that the unreserved category represents a distinct communal block that excludes meritorious reserved candidates.

"However, there is no communal or social or special category under the nomenclature 'Unreserved'."

Migration Principle Applies To Horizontal Quotas

Delving into the interplay between vertical and horizontal reservations, the court relied on the landmark judgments in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P. to explain the principle of interlocking reservations. The bench ruled that when a special horizontal reservation, such as PWD-LV, is applied to the unreserved category, it remains open to candidates of all social categories provided they possess the requisite special attribute. Thus, any SC, ST, or OBC candidate with the specified disability has an equal right to compete for an unreserved horizontal post based strictly on merit.

Merit Governs All Unreserved Vacancies

The court emphasized that a less meritorious unreserved candidate cannot steal a march over a highly meritorious reserved candidate simply because a notification uses confusing phrasing. Noting that such an interpretation would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the bench observed that the recruitment clause merely stated the obvious and could not be read as an absolute bar against meritorious reserved candidates. The court held that forcing the appointment of a lesser-scoring unreserved candidate defies the fundamental principle of open competition.

"Any contrary view would be patently arbitrary being opposed to the equality clause under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."

No Relaxations Permitted For Open Pool Migration

Placing a crucial caveat on the migration of reserved candidates to the open category, the court referred to the precedents set in Neil Aurelio Nunes v. Union of India and Deepa E.V. v. Union of India. The bench clarified that a reserved candidate can only be appointed against an unreserved vacancy if they have not availed themselves of any relaxations in the essential eligibility criteria. The court noted that in the present case, there was no material to suggest that the meritorious OBC-A candidate had utilized any such relaxed standards to secure his high marks.

"Qua a vacancy/post under 'Unreserved' category for the PWD-LV candidates, all PWD-LV candidates are equal and have similar rights even if they belong to different social reserved categories, and the most meritorious amongst them has to be preferred."

Summarising its findings, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the Calcutta High Court Division Bench. The court restored the decision of the Single Bench, ultimately upholding the appointment of the more meritorious OBC-A candidate to the unreserved PWD-LV post based on the strict application of merit.

Date of Decision: 07 April 2026