Can Reserved Candidates Compete for Unreserved Posts? Supreme Court Clarifies

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India recently addressed a significant issue regarding the filling of vacancies reserved for Persons with Disabilities (PWD) in the context of unreserved categories. The case, The West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd vs Dipendu Biswas & Ors., revolved around the interpretation of recruitment notifications and the principles of reservation and merit. This judgment clarifies the legal framework governing the appointment of candidates from reserved categories to unreserved posts, emphasizing the importance of merit in such appointments.

Case Background

The appeal arose from a recruitment notification issued by the West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd., which included vacancies for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade II. Among these, one post was reserved for the unreserved category specifically for Persons with Disabilities with Low Vision (PWD-LV). The notification stipulated that if no qualified unreserved candidate was available, the vacancy could be filled by candidates from other categories based on merit.

In this case, the respondent, Dipendu Biswas, who belonged to the unreserved PWD-LV category, contested the appointment of another candidate, who was from the Other Backward Classes-A (OBC-A) category but also qualified as PWD-LV. The respondent argued that since he was a qualified candidate under the unreserved category, he should have been appointed to the post, regardless of the merit of the OBC-A candidate.

What The Lower Authorities Held

Initially, the Single Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissed the respondent's writ petition, stating that the OBC-A candidate had scored higher marks and was therefore entitled to the appointment. However, the Division Bench of the High Court later reversed this decision, asserting that the unreserved vacancy should be filled by a qualified unreserved candidate if available, regardless of the merit of candidates from reserved categories.

The Division Bench's ruling was based on its interpretation of the recruitment notification, which it believed mandated that the unreserved post could only be filled by a qualified unreserved candidate. This interpretation was contested by the appellant, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

The Court's Reasoning

The Supreme Court examined the recruitment notification and the principles of reservation law in India. It emphasized that the unreserved category is open to all candidates, irrespective of their social category, and that merit should be the decisive factor in appointments to unreserved posts. The Court clarified that while the notification allowed for the filling of vacancies by candidates from other categories in the absence of qualified unreserved candidates, it did not imply that a less meritorious unreserved candidate should be preferred over a more meritorious reserved candidate.

The Court reiterated the principle of mobility in reservation, which allows candidates from reserved categories to compete for unreserved posts based on their merit. It stated that if a reserved candidate is more meritorious than an unreserved candidate, they should be appointed to the unreserved post. This principle aligns with the constitutional mandate of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Statutory Interpretation

The judgment delved into the statutory framework governing reservations in India, particularly the distinction between vertical and horizontal reservations. Vertical reservations pertain to social categories such as Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes, while horizontal reservations apply to special categories like Persons with Disabilities. The Court highlighted that horizontal reservations cut across vertical reservations, allowing candidates from various social categories to compete for posts designated for special categories, provided they meet the specific criteria.

The Court also referenced previous landmark judgments, including Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India and Saurav Yadav vs. State of U.P., to elucidate the principles governing the filling of reserved and unreserved posts. It emphasized that the appointment process must adhere to the principles of merit and equality, ensuring that all candidates are treated fairly and justly.

Why This Judgment Matters

This ruling is significant for several reasons. Firstly, it reinforces the principle that merit must be the primary criterion for appointments to unreserved posts, ensuring that the most qualified candidates are selected, regardless of their social category. Secondly, it clarifies the application of horizontal reservations in unreserved categories, allowing candidates from various social backgrounds to compete for positions based on their qualifications and merit.

The judgment also serves as a reminder of the importance of interpreting recruitment notifications in light of established legal principles and constitutional mandates. It underscores the need for transparency and fairness in the recruitment process, particularly for positions reserved for Persons with Disabilities.

Final Outcome

The Supreme Court ultimately allowed the appeal, setting aside the Division Bench's order and restoring the Single Bench's decision. The Court ruled that the appointment should be made based on merit, allowing the more meritorious reserved candidate to be appointed to the unreserved post, thereby upholding the principles of equality and merit in the recruitment process.

Case Details

• Case Title: The West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd vs Dipendu Biswas & Ors.
• Citation: 2026 INSC 330
• Court: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
• Bench: SANJAY KAROL, J. & NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, J.
• Date of Judgment: 2026-04-07