Dr. Kapil Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand & Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

The petitioner's grievance in this writ petition is that, though he belongs to the category of dependents of Freedom Fighters, he was not extended the benefit of reservation in appointment to the post of Assistant Professor (Shalya Tantra); though the advertisement inviting applications expressly stipulated that reservation would be provided in favour of dependents of Freedom Fighters, the respondent-University has not provided such reservation; and, consequently, the action of the respondent should be declared illegal.

63 posts of Assistant Professors were advertised, and applications were invited from eligible candidates. The petitioner, who was eligible to be considered for appointment only to the post of Assistant Professor (Shalya Tantra), submitted his application pursuant to the said advertisement.

5 posts were advertised for appointment as Assistant Professors (Shalya Tantra) of which 01 post was in the general category, 01 post was reserved in favour of the Other Backward Classes, 02 posts were reserved in favour of the Scheduled Castes, and 01 post in favour of the Scheduled Tribes. The petitioner, admittedly, belongs to the general category. The respondent-University called candidates for interview in the ratio of 1:5 i.e. for each post, the five most meritorious candidates were called for interview. The petitioner stood at serial no. 19 of the merit list and was, therefore, not called for interview.

The submission of Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that a separate list of dependents of Freedom Fighters should have been prepared, and appointment to the posts of Assistant Professors should have been made strictly in the order of merit from among those candidates whose names were found in the list of dependents of Freedom Fighters, irrespective whether or not a candidate in the said list was eligible to be considered for appointment to the post of Assistant Professor in that particular department.

Accepting the submission of Sri K.P. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner, would mean that a merit list of dependents of Freedom Fighters, cutting across all departments, should be prepared from among all candidates eligible for appointment under the general category. This submission of the learned counsel ignores the distinction between vertical and horizontal reservation. In vertical reservation, a separate list for each of the reserved categories i.e. OBC, Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe is required to be prepared; and after the list of general category candidates is exhausted, the most meritorious in each of these separate lists of OBCs, SCs and STs, is required to be selected separately for appointment to the posts reserved in favour of each of these categories. Horizontal reservation is provided, not for the socially and educationally backward, but for the physically handicapped, women, dependents of Freedom Fighters etc in each of the categories i.e. general, OBC, SC and ST. Unlike, vertical reservation which requires a separate list to be prepared for each category, no such requirement is prescribed for horizontal reservation. For instance if the most meritorious candidate in the list of general category candidates is a woman, appointment of such a woman, who stood first in the order of merit, would suffice to comply with the requirement of horizontal reservation in favour of women. On the other hand, vertical reservation in favour of the socially and educationally backward classes, such as OBCs, SCs and STs, is in addition to merit. Therefore, if the most meritorious among the general category candidates is an OBC, he would then be selected as a general category candidate, and the most meritorious OBC, other than those selected on their merit under the general category, would be entitled to be appointed to the post reserved in favour of the OBCs. It is in such circumstances that a separate list is required to be prepared for OBCs, SCs and STs, and is required to be filled up only from among candidates in that specific list, after all the posts in the general category are filled up.

As noted hereinabove, only 01 post of Assistant Professor was available, for the General category, in the department of Shalya Tantra. The respondent-University has called candidates in the ratio of 1:5, i.e. five most meritorious candidates were called for interview for appointment to the sole post of Assistant Professor (Shalya Tantra) in the general category. The petitioner was, admittedly, at Serial no. 19 in the merit list, and there were thirteen more meritorious candidates above him who were eligible for being considered for appointment. The principles applicable to vertical reservation cannot be made applicable to horizontal reservation; and, on such basis, appointment to a post, under the category of dependents of Freedom Fighters, cannot be claimed, more so as 2% of 01 post is 0.02%, and there is no need to reserve the single post, in favor of dependents of the Freedom Fighters in the general category.

We see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the action of the respondents in not extending the petitioner the benefit of reservation under the dependents of Freedom Fighters Category in the single post of Assistant Professor (Shalya Tantra).

The writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.