Facts: The West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. (Appellant) initiated a recruitment process for Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade II. The notification provided for compartmentalised horizontal reservations, including one post for Unreserved (Persons with Disabilities - Low Vision), denoted as UR (PWD-LV). A stipulation in the notification stated that in case of non-availability of a qualified unreserved candidate in the PWD-LV category, the vacancy would be filled by PWD candidates of other categories as per merit. Respondent No. 1, an unreserved PWD-LV candidate, scored 55.667 marks. Respondent No. 3, who belonged to the OBC-A category and also PWD-LV, scored 66.667 marks. The Appellant appointed Respondent No. 3 to the UR (PWD-LV) post based on higher merit.
Procedural Posture: Respondent No. 1 challenged the appointment of Respondent No. 3 before the Calcutta High Court. A Single Bench dismissed the writ petition, upholding the appointment based on merit. However, a Division Bench reversed this decision, holding that the vacancy must be filled by an unreserved candidate if available, and only in their absence could candidates from other social categories be considered. The Appellant then approached the Supreme Court.
Issue: Whether a candidate belonging to a reserved social category (OBC-A) can be appointed to a horizontal reservation post earmarked for the "Unreserved" category (UR PWD-LV) if they are more meritorious than a candidate from the unreserved category.
Holding: Yes, the appointment of the more meritorious reserved category candidate to the Unreserved horizontal vacancy is valid.
Reasoning: The Court reasoned that the term "Unreserved" or "Open" does not constitute a separate social category; it is an open pool available to all candidates based on merit, regardless of their social status. Referring to the "interlocking" nature of reservations established in "Indra Sawhney" and "Saurav Yadav", the Court held that horizontal reservations are not "inviolate pools". When a horizontal reservation is applied to the Unreserved category, it is open to any candidate who possesses the specific disability (the horizontal attribute), irrespective of their vertical (social) category. Thus, a more meritorious OBC candidate who also qualifies as PWD-LV is entitled to the UR (PWD-LV) post over a less meritorious unreserved PWD-LV candidate, provided the former did not avail of any relaxations (like age or experience) that are restricted to reserved categories. The Court found the Division Bench's interpretation to be "patently arbitrary" and contrary to the equality clauses of Articles 14 and 16.