The Supreme Court has ruled that a candidate from a community that enjoys reservations in government jobs can be appointed to a post in the administration in the unreserved category based on merit, even if there is an eligible applicant in the unreserved category.
However, the same logic cannot be applied vice versa. A candidate from the unreserved category cannot be accommodated in a post meant for applicants from SCs, STs and OBCs, which enjoy quotas, a division bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice N. Kotiswar Singh said in a judgment, while overturning a Calcutta High Court verdict.
“Thus, if the Unreserved/Open post is meant for the special category of Persons with Disabilities, it means that the said post will be open to all candidates of all vertical social categories, whether SC, ST or OBC, provided such candidates are also Persons with Disabilities. Thus, all candidates, whether SC, ST or OBC, but who are Persons with Disabilities, are equally entitled to compete for the post meant for Persons with Disabilities falling under the Unreserved category, the rationale being that all those who are similarly situated must be treated equally,” Justice Kotiswar Singh, who authored the judgment, observed.
The Supreme Court passed the ruling while setting aside a Calcutta High Court division bench judgment, which had set aside a single judge bench verdict and had held that a person belonging to the OBCs, SCs and STs cannot be appointed to the post in an unreserved category.
The core issue involved in the present appeal filed by the West Bengal State Electricity Commission related to the manner of filling of a vacancy reserved for person with disability with low vision (PWD-LV) in the unreserved category, UR (PWD-LV), where the recruitment notification stipulated that in case of non-availability of qualified unreserved candidate in the PWD-LV category, the vacancy will be filled up by PWD candidates of other categories according to merit
In the said recruitment process for the post of junior engineer (civil) grade 2, the respondent No 1 (unreserved category) scored 55.667 marks, whereas the respondent No 3 (OBC-A) scored 66.667 marks. Since the respondent No 3 under the OBC-A category also belongs to the PWD-LV category and obtained higher marks than the respondent No 1, he was offered appointment to the aforesaid unreserved post of UR (PWD-LV) and not the respondent No 1.
Respondent No 1, who belonged to the unreserved category, challenged his non-appointment before a single judge of the high court, which dismissed it. Upon his appeal, the division bench reversed the same, following which the commission filed the present appeal.