New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India has held that a post reserved for Persons with Disabilities with Low Vision (PWD-LV) under the Unreserved category is open to all PWD-LV candidates, irrespective of whether they belong to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, or the Unreserved category, and that merit is the sole determinative criterion for filling such a post.
A Bench comprising Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh and Justice Sanjay Karol further held that a condition in a recruitment notification stipulating that, in the absence of a qualified Unreserved PWD-LV candidate, the vacancy will be filled by PWD candidates of other categories as per merit, cannot be interpreted as imposing an absolute bar on more meritorious PWD-LV candidates from reserved social categories merely because a PWD-LV candidate from the Unreserved category is available.
The appeal was accordingly allowed, and the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Calcutta was set aside, restoring the decision of the Single Bench.
The appeal arose from a recruitment process initiated by the West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade II vide Notification No. REC/2023/01. The notification included 30 vacancies, of which 1 (one) post was reserved for candidates from the Unreserved (PWD-LV) category and 5 (five) posts were earmarked for OBC-A candidates. Crucially, no horizontal reservation for PWD-LV was provided within the OBC-A category.
Respondent No. 1 (Dipendu Biswas), a PWD-LV candidate from the Unreserved category, applied for the Unreserved (PWD-LV) post and scored 55.667 marks. Respondent No. 3, an OBC-A candidate who also belonged to the PWD-LV category, applied against the OBC-A posts and scored 66.667 marks. Since Respondent No. 3 was more meritorious and also possessed the PWD-LV attribute, the appellant authority offered him appointment to the post.
Respondent No. 1 challenged this appointment before the High Court of Calcutta, contending that since a qualified Unreserved PWD-LV candidate was available, the stipulation in the recruitment notification mandated that the post be filled only by a candidate from the Unreserved category. The Single Bench dismissed the writ petition, finding that Respondent No. 3 was qualified under the PWD-LV horizontal category and had scored higher marks. However, on an intra-court appeal, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court reversed the Single Bench and directed that the post be given to Respondent No. 1.
The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, undertook a detailed examination of the law on vertical and horizontal reservations. The Court reaffirmed that the Unreserved or Open category does not refer to any social or communal category and is open to all candidates irrespective of their social classification. Applying this principle to horizontal reservations, the Court held that a post earmarked for a special (horizontal) reservation under the Unreserved category is likewise open to every candidate possessing the attribute of that special category, in this case PWD-LV, regardless of the vertical social category to which the candidate belongs.
Placing reliance on the Constitution Bench decision in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) Supp (3) SCC 217, and the subsequent ruling in Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P., (2021) 4 SCC 542, the Court held that the principle of migration applicable to vertical reservations equally governs horizontal reservations under the Unreserved category. Accordingly, a more meritorious PWD-LV candidate from OBC-A, SC, or ST categories may be appointed to an Unreserved PWD-LV post on the basis of superior merit, in the same manner as a reserved category candidate migrates to the Unreserved pool in vertical reservation.
The Court further clarified that vice versa does not apply: where a post is reserved for PWD within a specific social category such as OBC-A, only PWD candidates of that particular social category can compete, as the horizontal reservation is compartmentalised within that vertical category. Similarly, candidates from other horizontal categories such as those with Hearing Impairment (PWD-HH) or Ex-Servicemen cannot compete for the PWD-LV post even if it falls under the Unreserved category.
The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court had erred in treating the Unreserved category as though it were a distinct social or communal category, thereby barring reserved category candidates from competing for the Unreserved PWD-LV vacancy. The Court observed that such an interpretation was patently arbitrary and violated the equality clause under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The correct reading of the impugned condition in the recruitment notification, the Court held, was merely to state the obvious: that in the absence of qualified Unreserved PWD-LV candidates, candidates possessing the PWD-LV attribute from any social category may fill the post on merit.
The Court also held, following Deepa E.V. v. Union of India, (2017) 12 SCC 680, and Union of India v. Sajib Roy, 2025 INSC 1084, that a reserved category candidate who has availed relaxation in eligibility criteria cannot be considered a qualified candidate for an Unreserved post. In the present case, no such relaxation had been availed by Respondent No. 3, and therefore his appointment to the Unreserved (PWD-LV) post was held to be valid and in consonance with settled law on reservation.
Case Title: The West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. & Ors. v. Dipendu Biswas & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 10262 of 2025 (2026 INSC 330)
