West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co Ltd & Orsv.Dipendu Biswas & Ors

Citation:: 2026 INSC 330
Date:: 7 April 2026
Reading time:: 15 min read

Legal Analysis: West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd & Ors. vs. Dipendu Biswas & Ors

Citation: 2026 INSC 330

Court: Supreme Court of India

Coram: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh (Two‑Judge Bench)

Judgment Author: Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh (judgment delivered by the Bench)

Date of Decision: April 7, 2026

Nature of Judgment: This is a judgment by a Two‑Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in its civil appellate jurisdiction, arising from a Civil Appeal against a judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court.

1. Synopsis of the Judgment

This judgment settles the manner of filling a horizontally reserved vacancy for Persons with Disability with Low Vision (PWD‑LV) falling under the Unreserved (UR) category, where the recruitment notification stipulated that “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.” The Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court had held that if a qualified UR (PWD‑LV) candidate exists, that vacancy must be filled only by such candidate, even if a more meritorious PWD‑LV candidate from a reserved social category (OBC‑A) is available. The Supreme Court reversed this, holding that the UR (PWD‑LV) post is open to all PWD‑LV candidates irrespective of their social category, and the most meritorious among all PWD‑LV candidates must be appointed. The Court restored the Single Bench’s decision, allowing the more meritorious OBC‑A (PWD‑LV) candidate to be appointed to the UR (PWD‑LV) post.

2. Basic Information of the Judgment

Case Title: The West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd & Ors. vs. Dipendu Biswas & Ors.

Civil Appeal No.: 10262 of 2025

Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Date of Decision: April 7, 2026

Citation: 2026 INSC 330

Appeal From: Judgment and order dated 07.05.2024 of the Division Bench of the High Court at Calcutta in MAT 69/2024 with CAN 1 of 2024, setting aside the order of the Single Bench in WPA 26312/2023.

3. Legal Framework

This judgment involves the interpretation of horizontal (special) reservations under Article 16 of the Constitution of India, particularly the interplay between vertical (social) reservations and horizontal reservations, and the principle of “mobility” (migration) from reserved categories to unreserved/open category posts.

A. Key Constitutional Provisions:

Article 16(1): Equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.
Article 16(4): Provision for reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which is not adequately represented in the services under the State (vertical reservation).
Article 16(1) (read with Article 15): Reservations in favour of physically handicapped (horizontal reservation) are traceable to the general equality clause.

B. Related Precedents (Discussed in the Judgment):

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217: Distinguished between vertical reservations (in favour of SC/ST/OBC under Article 16(4)) and horizontal reservations (e.g., for physically handicapped under Article 16(1)). Held that horizontal reservations are not separate quotas but overlap with vertical reservations.
Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P., (2020) 10 SCC 464: Laid down the features of vertical reservations (inviolate pools, mobility from reserved to open category based on merit, carry‑forward of shortfall) and the method of filling horizontal reservations – first adjust on merit in the open category, then within the social reservation quota.
Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (1995) 5 SCC 173: Explained the distinction between “compartmentalised reservations” (horizontal quotas divided among vertical categories, not intertransferable) and “overall reservations” (horizontal quotas transferable across vertical categories).

4. Relevant Facts of the Case

Recruitment Notification (No. REC/2023/01): The Appellant, West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd., initiated a recruitment process for 30 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade II.
Reservation Chart (Relevant Extracts):
UR (PWD‑LV) – 1 post
OBC‑A – 5 posts (no horizontal PWD‑LV reservation under OBC‑A)
Notes in the notification:
“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.”
Similar note for UR (PWD‑HH).
Candidates:
Respondent No. 1 (Dipendu Biswas): Belongs to Unreserved category, PWD‑LV. Scored 55.667 marks.
Respondent No. 3 (OBC‑A candidate): Belongs to OBC‑A category, also a PWD‑LV. Scored 66.667 marks. There was no horizontal PWD‑LV reservation under OBC‑A.
Selection Process: The Appellant offered the single UR (PWD‑LV) post to Respondent No. 3 (the more meritorious PWD‑LV candidate from OBC‑A), not to Respondent No. 1.
Writ Petition (WPA 26312/2023): Respondent No. 1 challenged the offer before the Calcutta High Court, arguing that since he was a qualified UR (PWD‑LV) candidate, the vacancy could not be given to any other candidate.
Single Bench Order (11.12.2023): Dismissed the writ petition, upholding the appointment of Respondent No. 3 on the ground of merit.
Division Bench Order (07.05.2024): Reversed the Single Bench, held that if a qualified UR (PWD‑LV) candidate is available, the vacancy must be filled only by such candidate, and the condition for filling by “other categories” applies only when no UR (PWD‑LV) candidate exists.
Appeal to Supreme Court: The Employer (Appellant) challenged the Division Bench order.

5. Issues Identified by the Supreme Court

Whether, under a recruitment notification that reserves a post for UR (PWD‑LV) and provides that “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,” a more meritorious PWD‑LV candidate belonging to a reserved social category (OBC‑A) can be appointed to that UR (PWD‑LV) post even when a less meritorious UR (PWD‑LV) candidate is available.
What is the true legal character of an “Unreserved” post that is horizontally reserved for a special category (e.g., PWD‑LV)? Is it open only to candidates who are both Unreserved (by social category) and PWD‑LV, or is it open to all PWD‑LV candidates irrespective of their social category?
Whether the principle of mobility (migration) applies to horizontal reservations under the Unreserved category.

6. Ratio Decidendi (The Reasoning and Decision of the Court)

A. Character of “Unreserved” Category in Horizontal Reservations

The Court held that the “Unreserved” or “Open” category does not denote any social or communal category like SC, ST, or OBC. It merely represents the remaining vacancies after accounting for vertical reservations. (Para 29, 41)

For vertical reservation: Unreserved posts are open to all candidates irrespective of social category.
For horizontal reservation under Unreserved category: The post remains open to all social categories, but candidates must also possess the special attribute (e.g., PWD‑LV). Thus, a UR (PWD‑LV) post is open to all PWD‑LV candidates, whether they belong to SC, ST, OBC, or Unreserved social category. (Para 29-30)

B. Principle of Mobility (Migration) Applies

The Court reiterated that a candidate from a reserved social category (e.g., OBC‑A) can compete for and be appointed to an Unreserved post based on merit, without affecting the reserved quota. This principle, settled in Indra Sawhney and Saurav Yadav, applies equally to horizontal reservations under the Unreserved category. (Para 31-32)

“Thus, even though there are candidates under the Unreserved category who are Persons with Disabilities, if there are more meritorious candidates belonging to any of the social categories like SC, ST or OBC who are also Persons with Disabilities, such more meritorious persons from the SC, ST or OBC category can be appointed against the Unreserved quota meant for Person with Disabilities by virtue of merit.” (Para 31)

C. Interpretation of the Condition in the Notification

The condition – “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” – must be read in consonance with established legal principles, not contrary to them. (Para 37)

It does not mean that so long as any UR (PWD‑LV) candidate exists, there is an absolute bar to considering more meritorious PWD‑LV candidates from reserved categories.
Rather, it states the obvious: if no eligible UR (PWD‑LV) candidate exists, the vacancy can be filled by any PWD‑LV candidate from any social category. But even when a UR (PWD‑LV) candidate exists, a more meritorious PWD‑LV candidate from a reserved category can still be appointed by virtue of merit, because the UR (PWD‑LV) post is open to all PWD‑LV candidates. (Para 43-44)

D. Merit is the Sole Criterion for Unreserved Posts

Appointment to an Unreserved post (even with a horizontal special condition) is governed by merit. A less meritorious UR (PWD‑LV) candidate cannot “steal a march” over a more meritorious PWD‑LV candidate from a reserved category. Any contrary view would violate Articles 14 and 16. (Para 43, 46)

E. Application of Saurav Yadav Framework

The Court applied the Saurav Yadav method: first examine whether a horizontal category candidate can be adjusted on merit in the open category. Here, Respondent No. 3 (OBC‑A, PWD‑LV) was more meritorious than Respondent No. 1 and was correctly adjusted against the UR (PWD‑LV) vacancy. The second step (adjustment within the social reservation quota) did not arise because there was no PWD‑LV horizontal reservation under OBC‑A. (Para 45)

F. Caveat – No Relaxation of Eligibility

The Court noted that if a reserved category candidate seeks appointment to an Unreserved post, they must not have availed any relaxation in eligibility criteria (e.g., age, experience) that was granted only for reserved category appointments. If such relaxation was availed, they cannot be considered “qualified” for the Unreserved post. In the present case, no such relaxation was shown. (Para 47-48)

G. Decision

The appeal was allowed. The Division Bench judgment was set aside, and the Single Bench order (upholding the appointment of Respondent No. 3) was restored.

7. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

Unreserved horizontally reserved posts are open to all social categories possessing the special attribute: A post reserved for a special category (e.g., PWD‑LV) under the Unreserved/Open category is not confined to candidates who are socially “Unreserved”; it is open to all candidates (SC, ST, OBC, UR) who belong to that special category. (Para 29-30)
Merit prevails over “availability” of any UR candidate in horizontal reservations: The mere existence of a qualified candidate from the Unreserved social category for a horizontally reserved UR post does not bar the appointment of a more meritorious candidate from a reserved social category who also possesses the special attribute. The condition in a notification about “non‑availability” of UR candidates cannot be read as creating an absolute bar when a UR candidate exists but is less meritorious. (Para 43-44)
Mobility principle applies to horizontal reservations under Unreserved category: The well‑settled principle that reserved category candidates can migrate to Unreserved posts on merit applies equally to horizontally reserved posts under the Unreserved category. (Para 31-32)
Parity within horizontal reservations: All PWD‑LV candidates, irrespective of their social category, are equally situated for the purpose of a UR (PWD‑LV) post; discrimination based on social category would violate Article 14. (Para 44)

8. The Court’s Analysis and Examination of Concepts

A. Vertical vs. Horizontal Reservations – Reiteration of Indra Sawhney

The Court quoted extensively from Indra Sawhney to establish that vertical reservations (SC/ST/OBC) are separate quotas, while horizontal reservations (PWD, Ex‑Servicemen, etc.) overlap and are calculated concurrently with vertical reservations. This overlap means that a candidate can belong to both a vertical category (e.g., OBC‑A) and a horizontal category (e.g., PWD‑LV). (Para 20)

B. Mobility – Reiteration of Saurav Yadav

The Court reproduced the features of vertical and horizontal reservations from Saurav Yadav:

Vertical reservations are inviolate pools; mobility from reserved to open category is possible based on merit.
Horizontal reservations are “interlocking” and require adjustment first on merit in the open category, then within the social reservation quota. (Para 22)

C. Compartmentalised vs. Overall Reservations – Anil Kumar Gupta

The Court noted that the present notification exhibited a “compartmentalised” horizontal reservation pattern (i.e., horizontal quotas distributed among vertical categories and not intertransferable). However, it held that this did not affect the issue because the post in question was UR (PWD‑LV), and compartmentalisation does not restrict mobility to the Unreserved category. (Para 23-24)

D. Rejection of Division Bench’s Interpretation

The Division Bench had treated “Unreserved” as if it were a distinct social category, requiring that only socially Unreserved PWD‑LV candidates could be considered for UR (PWD‑LV) posts so long as any existed. The Supreme Court held that this was fallacious – “Unreserved” is not a social category; it is the residual pool open to all. (Para 41)

E. Why the Condition in the Notification Does Not Bar Merit‑Based Migration

The Court explained that the condition (“in case of non‑availability…”) is merely an enabling provision for situations where no PWD‑LV candidate exists in the Unreserved social category. It cannot be read as a disabling provision that forbids considering a more meritorious PWD‑LV candidate from a reserved category even when a less meritorious UR (PWD‑LV) candidate exists. Such a reading would make merit irrelevant for that post, violating the equality code. (Para 43-44)

F. Relaxation of Eligibility – Caveat from Deepa E.V. and Sajib Roy

The Court added an important caveat: if a reserved category candidate has availed relaxation in eligibility (e.g., lower cut‑off marks, age relaxation) that was not available to Unreserved candidates, they cannot be considered “qualified” for the Unreserved post. This ensures that migration is based on equal merit, not on preferential treatment. Since no such relaxation was availed by Respondent No. 3, the appointment was valid. (Para 47-48)

9. Critical Analysis of the Judgment

Strengths

Clarifies a common confusion: Many recruiting bodies and High Courts have erroneously treated horizontally reserved posts under the Unreserved category as being reserved exclusively for candidates who are both socially Unreserved and possess the special attribute. This judgment authoritatively clarifies that such posts are open to all special‑category candidates, regardless of social category, with merit as the sole criterion.
Preserves merit in open category posts: By allowing the more meritorious OBC‑A (PWD‑LV) candidate to be appointed, the Court ensures that the Unreserved category – which is meant to be merit‑based – does not become a “reserved” pool for less meritorious UR candidates. This is consistent with the constitutional scheme where Unreserved posts are the field for open competition.
Provides a clear framework for similar disputes: The judgment lays down a simple test: (1) Identify the horizontal category (e.g., PWD‑LV). (2) Collect all candidates from all social categories who belong to that horizontal category. (3) Rank them by merit. (4) Fill the UR (horizontal) post with the most meritorious among them. The condition about “non‑availability of UR candidate” is only a fallback, not a bar.
Harmonises with Saurav Yadav adjustment method: The Court correctly applied the first step of the Saurav Yadav framework – adjusting the horizontal category candidate on merit in the open category – and held that Respondent No. 3 was rightly adjusted.

Potential Concerns / Critiques

May be misinterpreted as allowing “double benefit”: A critic could argue that Respondent No. 3, being an OBC‑A candidate, already had the benefit of vertical reservation (even though he was not appointed under it because more meritorious OBC‑A candidates existed). Allowing him to take the UR (PWD‑LV) post on merit is unobjectionable because he did not use any relaxation. However, if a reserved candidate uses a lower cut‑off to qualify for the UR post, the Court’s caveat (para 47-48) properly prevents that.
The condition in the notification could have been drafted better: The Court acknowledges that the condition is “merely stating the obvious.” In practice, such ambiguous drafting leads to litigation. The judgment effectively rewrites the condition to align with constitutional principles, which is a legitimate exercise of judicial interpretation.
Does not address inter‑horizontal category competition: The judgment notes that only PWD‑LV candidates can compete for UR (PWD‑LV); other horizontal categories (e.g., PWD‑HH) are not eligible. This is correct because the special attribute is different.

Impact

This judgment will be a binding precedent for all public recruitment processes across India. Recruiting bodies must now ensure that when they advertise a horizontally reserved post under the Unreserved category, they do not restrict consideration to socially Unreserved candidates. The most meritorious candidate from any social category who possesses the special horizontal attribute must be appointed. The common practice of issuing offers only to socially Unreserved candidates for such posts, ignoring more meritorious reserved‑category candidates with the same disability, is now invalid.

10. Final Outcome

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The impugned judgment and order dated 07.05.2024 passed by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in MAT 69/2024 with CAN 1 of 2024 was set aside. The decision of the Single Bench dated 11.12.2023, which had dismissed the writ petition and upheld the appointment of Respondent No. 3 (the OBC‑A, PWD‑LV candidate) to the UR (PWD‑LV) post, was restored. Pending applications were disposed of.

11. Practical Application, Court Lines, and Legal Strategy

Use in Court (Practical Application)

For Recruiting Bodies (Employers): When filling a horizontally reserved post under the Unreserved category (e.g., UR‑PWD, UR‑Ex.Serviceman, UR‑EC), prepare a merit list of all candidates who possess the special horizontal attribute, from all social categories (UR, SC, ST, OBC). Appoint the most meritorious. Do not restrict consideration to socially Unreserved candidates. Include a clear condition in the notification that “candidates from all social categories possessing the [special attribute] are eligible to compete for this UR (horizontal) post.”
For Reserved Category Candidates (SC/ST/OBC) with a Disability / Special Attribute: If you are more meritorious than a socially Unreserved candidate for a UR (PWD‑LV) post, you can challenge any attempt to appoint the less meritorious UR candidate. Cite this judgment to argue that the UR (horizontal) post is open to you, and merit must prevail.
For Unreserved Category Candidates with a Disability: You cannot claim an absolute right to a UR (PWD‑LV) post merely because you are socially Unreserved. You must compete on merit with all other PWD‑LV candidates from reserved categories. However, if a reserved category candidate has availed any relaxation in eligibility (e.g., lower qualifying marks, age relaxation) that was not extended to Unreserved candidates, you can argue that such candidate is not “qualified” for the UR post under Deepa E.V. and Sajib Roy.
For High Courts: When interpreting a notification with a similar “non‑availability” condition, do not read it as creating a bar. Instead, apply the Saurav Yadav adjustment method and this judgment’s clarification that UR (horizontal) posts are open to all candidates with the special attribute.

Court Lines

“In our view, when we talk of horizontal or special reservation pertaining to the Unreserved category, a similar position will prevail. This characteristic or attribute of the Unreserved or Open category will continue to apply even under the horizontal/special reservation, under the Unreserved category only with the exception that it will be qualified by the nature of the special category for which it is meant. In other words, when the special (horizontal) reservation is applied to the Unreserved/Open category, it will be open to all candidates irrespective of the social category, provided they are also endowed with the character of the same special (horizontal) categorisation.” (Para 28)

“Thus, a post earmarked for special (horizontal) reservation under the Unreserved category will be open to every candidate possessing the attribute or character of the special (horizontal) reservation.” (Para 28)

“If any Unreserved candidate (belonging to PWD‑LV) available, is found to be below in merit to any other reserved candidate (belonging to PWD‑LV), such PWD‑LV candidate belonging to the Unreserved category cannot steal a march over the more meritorious PWD‑LV candidate from the reserved category as it would defy the principle of merit, which is the sole criterion for appointment under the Unreserved category.” (Para 43)

“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.” (Para 44)

Legal Strategy Insight

For the Employer (Drafting Recruitment Notifications):
To avoid litigation, draft the condition as follows: “The UR (PWD‑LV) post is open to all PWD‑LV candidates from all social categories (UR, SC, ST, OBC). Selection will be based purely on merit (highest marks) among all eligible PWD‑LV candidates. If no PWD‑LV candidate from any social category is available, the vacancy may be filled by other PWD categories as per merit.” This removes ambiguity.

For the Candidate (Challenging a Wrongful Appointment):
If you are a reserved category (SC/ST/OBC) PWD candidate and a less meritorious UR PWD candidate is appointed to a UR‑PWD post, file a writ petition. Annex the merit list showing your higher marks. Cite this judgment and Saurav Yadav. Argue that the employer has treated the UR‑PWD post as if it were reserved only for socially Unreserved PWD candidates, which is constitutionally impermissible. Demand that the appointment be set aside and the post be offered to you.

For the UR PWD Candidate (Defending Your Appointment):
If a more meritorious reserved category PWD candidate challenges your appointment, you must demonstrate either: (a) that the reserved candidate availed some relaxation in eligibility (e.g., lower cut‑off, age relaxation) that you did not have, thereby making them ineligible for the UR post; or (b) that the recruitment notification explicitly and validly restricted the UR‑PWD post to socially Unreserved candidates only (unlikely after this judgment). Otherwise, your appointment will be invalid.

For the High Court:
When dealing with such disputes, do not dismiss the writ petition simply because the condition says “in case of non‑availability.” Instead, direct the employer to produce the list of all PWD‑LV candidates with their marks and social categories. Then determine whether the most meritorious PWD‑LV candidate (from any social category) was appointed. If not, quash the selection and direct fresh appointment based on merit among all PWD‑LV candidates.

View full judgment (PDF)