Case Name: THE WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION CO.LTD & ORS. VS. DIPENDU BISWAS & ORS.
Petition Number: CIVIL APPEAL NO.10262 OF 2025
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 330
Date of Judgement: 07.04.2026
Coram: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL & HON’BLE MR JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH
INTRODUCTION
The appeal was filed against a judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, which had reversed an order passed by a Single Bench. The core dispute revolved around the manner of filling a public employment vacancy horizontally reserved for a Person with Benchmark Disability (Low Vision) under the Unreserved category UR (PWD-LV). The Supreme Court examined whether a more meritorious reserved category candidate (OBC-A) possessing the requisite disability could be appointed to an Unreserved vacancy, or if the vacancy had to exclusively go to an available Unreserved candidate despite their lower merit.
FACTS
The West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. initiated a recruitment process for Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade II. The notification advertised 30 vacancies, which included 1 post for Unreserved UR (PWD-LV) and 5 posts for the OBC-A category. A note in the notification stipulated: “In case of non-availability of qualified UR (PWD-LV) candidate, the vacancy will be filled by PWD candidates of other categories as per merit.”
Respondent No. 1 applied as an Unreserved candidate under the UR (PWD-LV) quota and scored 55.667 marks. Respondent No. 3 applied under the OBC-A quota, but also belonged to the PWD-LV category, and scored 66.667 marks. Recognizing Respondent No. 3’s superior merit and his PWD-LV status, the recruiting authority offered him the single UR (PWD-LV) post.
Respondent No. 1 challenged this before the High Court. The Single Bench dismissed the writ petition, upholding the merit-based appointment. However, the Division Bench reversed this decision, ruling that the notification’s condition meant the vacancy had to be filled by an Unreserved candidate as long as one was available, regardless of whether a reserved category candidate scored higher.
ISSUES
- Whether a more meritorious reserved category candidate (OBC-A) who also possesses the requisite horizontal qualification (PWD-LV) can migrate to and claim an Unreserved horizontal vacancy based on pure merit?
- Whether the recruitment notification’s condition regarding the “non-availability” of a UR candidate acted as an absolute bar preventing a more meritorious reserved candidate from claiming the Unreserved seat?
ARGUMENTS OF THE PARTIES
Respondent No. 1 (Unreserved Candidate) argued that the explicit condition in the recruitment notification was binding. He contended that as long as a qualified Unreserved PWD-LV candidate like himself was available, no other candidate from any other reserved category could have been considered for appointment, and he should have been given appointment.
The Appellant (Recruiting Authority) and Respondent No. 3 (OBC-A Candidate) argued that the “Unreserved” category is an open pool based strictly on merit. Since Respondent No. 3 possessed the required PWD-LV qualification and secured significantly higher marks than Respondent No. 1, he rightfully migrated to the Unreserved seat in accordance with the established constitutional principles of merit migration.
JUDGEMENT AND ANALYSIS
The Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Division Bench’s judgment and restoring the Single Bench’s decision. The Court undertook a detailed analysis of reservation jurisprudence, distinguishing between vertical (social) reservations and horizontal (special) reservations. Relying on landmark precedents such as Indra Sawhney and Saurav Yadav, the Court reiterated that the “Unreserved” or “Open” category is not a separate communal or social category; it is an open pool available to everyone, where merit is the sole decisive factor.
The Court clarified that when a horizontal reservation is applied to the Unreserved category, it means the post is open to all social categories, provided the candidate possesses that specific special attribute (PWD-LV). Therefore, the principle of migration applies in this scenario. However, the vice versa will not be true. Thus, if a post is reserved for Persons with Disabilities (PWD) for the social category of OBC-A, only Persons with Disabilities under the OBC-A category can apply, and no other PWD candidates belonging to any other category should be considered. The Court hence held that the appellant, being more meritorious and belonging to the PWD-LV category, was entitled to be considered against the UR (PWD-LV) vacancy notwithstanding their OBC-A status.
The Court heavily criticized the Division Bench’s interpretation of the notification’s note. The Supreme Court explained that the note merely stated the obvious: if no UR candidate is available, others can fill the spot. However, it cannot be read to defy the principle of merit by allowing a less meritorious Unreserved candidate to steal a march over a more meritorious reserved candidate. Any such interpretation would be arbitrary and violative of the equality clauses under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
CONCLUSION
The Supreme Court concluded that the Division Bench fundamentally misunderstood the implications of the recruitment notification and the established laws of reservation. The Court held that, qua a vacancy under the “Unreserved” category earmarked for a horizontal class like PWD-LV, all candidates possessing that disability have equal rights irrespective of their vertical social categories, and the most meritorious amongst them must be preferred. Reaffirming the principle of merit migration, the Court held that a less meritorious Unreserved candidate must always give way to the claim of a more meritorious reserved candidate competing for the same Unreserved open pool.
