UR(PWD-LV) Vacancies Must Be Filled on Merit by Any PWD-LV Candidate Irrespective of Vertical Category (Migration to Unreserved Horizontal Seats)
1) Introduction
This Supreme Court decision in THE WEST BENGAL STATE ELECTRICITY TRANSMISSION CO LTD v. DIPENDU BISWAS
(2026 INSC 330, decided on 07-04-2026) addresses a recurring service-law question:
how to fill a horizontally reserved vacancy for Persons with Disabilities—Low Vision (PWD-LV) that is placed within the “Unreserved” (UR) category.
The appellant-employer (West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd.) issued Recruitment Notification No. REC/2023/01 for
Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade II, including one post earmarked as UR (PWD-LV). Respondent No. 1 (Dipendu Biswas) applied
as a UR PWD-LV candidate. Respondent No. 3, though an OBC-A candidate, also disclosed PWD-LV status and secured higher marks.
The employer appointed Respondent No. 3 to the UR (PWD-LV) seat based on merit.
Litigation followed because the notification contained a note:
“In case of non-availability of qualified UR (PWD-LV) candidate, the vacancy will be filled up by PWD candidates of other categories as per merit.”
The controversy was whether this note barred selection of a higher-merit reserved-category PWD-LV candidate for the UR (PWD-LV) seat
when a qualified UR PWD-LV candidate existed.
Key issue
Whether a UR (PWD-LV) vacancy must be offered to a UR PWD-LV candidate whenever available, or whether it can be filled on
merit by any PWD-LV candidate (including from OBC/SC/ST categories) through the principle of migration to the unreserved slot.
2) Summary of the Judgment
-
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Calcutta High Court Division Bench order (dated 07.05.2024),
and restored the Single Bench decision (dated 11.12.2023).
-
It held that a UR (PWD-LV) post is open to all PWD-LV candidates irrespective of their vertical/social category,
and must be filled purely on merit among PWD-LV candidates.
-
The Court treated the notification’s “non-availability” note as not overriding established reservation principles; it cannot be read to
prefer a less meritorious UR PWD-LV candidate over a more meritorious reserved-category PWD-LV candidate.
-
The Court reiterated an important constraint: a reserved-category candidate migrating to an unreserved post
must not have availed relaxations in essential eligibility criteria applicable to the unreserved post.
3) Analysis
A) Precedents Cited
The Court relied on Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992 Supp (3) SCC 217) for two foundational propositions:
-
The distinction between vertical reservations (SC/ST/OBC under Article 16(4)) and horizontal reservations
(such as “physically handicapped” under Article 16(1)), and that horizontal reservations “cut across” vertical categories
(inter-locking).
-
The doctrine of migration: reserved-category candidates selected on merit in open competition are
not counted against their reserved quota and are treated as open competition candidates.
In the present case, this framework was used to reject the assumption that “UR” is itself a distinct “community” that must be insulated
from meritorious reserved-category candidates.
The Court treated Saurav Yadav v. State of UP (2021) 4 SCC 542 as the modern restatement of operational rules:
-
For vertical reservations, migration from reserved to unreserved is permitted on merit; the reserved quota remains intact.
-
For horizontal reservations, the “first rule” is adjustment: examine whether, on merit, horizontal-category candidates
can be adjusted in the open category, and then within the particular social quota where applicable.
Applying this, the Supreme Court held that the correct question was whether Respondent No. 3 (PWD-LV) could be adjusted against the
UR (PWD-LV) vacancy on merit; since he outscored Respondent No. 1, he could.
iii) Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P.
Anil Kumar Gupta Vs. State of U.P. (1995) 5 SCC 173 was cited for the distinction between
overall and compartmentalised horizontal reservations.
While the Court noted that the notification reflected a compartmentalised distribution of horizontal seats across vertical categories,
it clarified that the present dispute turned specifically on the UR horizontal seat and the principle of migration to “UR,”
rather than inter-transfer between compartments.
The Court cited Neil Aurelio Nunes (OBC reservation) v. Union of India (2022) 4 SCC 1 to reaffirm that reservation is an
affirmative action measure aimed at achieving substantive equality, not an exception to equality.
This supported the Court’s emphasis that an interpretation producing arbitrary outcomes (appointing a less meritorious candidate to an
unreserved seat solely because of the “UR” label) would offend Articles 14 and 16.
The Court invoked Deepa E.V. v. Union of India (2017) 12 SCC 680, reiterated in
UNION OF INDIA v. SAJIB ROY (2025 INSC 1084), to underline a limiting principle:
a reserved-category candidate can occupy an unreserved post through merit only if they have not relied upon
category-based relaxations that are unavailable to unreserved candidates for that post.
On facts, the Court recorded that nothing showed Respondent No. 3 had availed such relaxation for the UR (PWD-LV) post.
B) Legal Reasoning
i) What “Unreserved” means in law
The Court’s core move was conceptual: “Unreserved/Open” is not a social/communal category.
It is the residual open pool after reserved quotas are earmarked; it remains open to all eligible candidates.
ii) How UR interacts with a horizontal tag (UR (PWD-LV))
The Court clarified that when a horizontal reservation is placed within UR, it creates an open competition pool
within the PWD-LV class:
-
The “UR” attribute keeps it open across vertical categories (SC/ST/OBC/UR).
-
The “(PWD-LV)” attribute restricts eligibility to that horizontal class (PWD-LV).
Therefore, all PWD-LV candidates—whether UR, OBC-A, SC, or ST—are similarly situated for purposes of the UR (PWD-LV) seat, and
the most meritorious PWD-LV candidate must be selected.
iii) Interpreting the “non-availability” note in the notification
The Division Bench read the note as creating a priority: if any qualified UR PWD-LV candidate exists, only that candidate can be appointed.
The Supreme Court rejected this reading because it would:
-
Convert “UR” into a protected compartment akin to a communal category (a legal error).
-
Defeat merit as the “inseparable attribute” of UR appointments.
-
Create arbitrariness under Articles 14 and 16 by letting a less meritorious candidate “steal a march” over a more meritorious candidate
competing for a UR seat.
Instead, the Court treated the note as essentially stating the obvious: if no eligible UR(PWD-LV)-type candidate is available, the vacancy
may be filled by PWD candidates of other categories—but this cannot be used to negate merit-based migration into UR.
iv) The relaxation caveat
The Court preserved the integrity of UR competition by reiterating that migration into UR is impermissible if the candidate’s eligibility
for the process depends on relaxations not available for UR.
This maintains a principled boundary: UR seats are open, but not on relaxed standards.
C) Impact
-
Recruitment authorities: Must treat UR horizontal vacancies (e.g., UR (PWD-LV)) as open to all candidates of that horizontal
class across vertical categories, to be filled by merit, subject to the “no relaxation for UR” constraint.
-
Drafting and interpretation of notifications: Boilerplate “non-availability” clauses cannot be construed to override the
constitutional and precedential architecture of UR migration and merit-based selection.
-
Litigation clarity: The judgment reduces confusion where candidates assume “UR” creates a preferential right for candidates
who are socially “unreserved.” It does not; it denotes openness, not exclusivity.
-
PWD horizontal reservations: Confirms that horizontal reservations in UR must function as an equal-opportunity pool among the
horizontal class, preventing internal stratification based on vertical categories.
4) Complex Concepts Simplified
- Vertical reservation
- Reservation for social categories (SC/ST/OBC). Seats are earmarked and generally filled only by that category.
- Horizontal reservation
- Reservation for special categories (here, PWD-LV) that “cuts across” vertical categories; eligible candidates are adjusted within the appropriate vertical slot, or compete in UR depending on the structure.
- UR / Open category
- Not a caste/community category; it is the open pool. Anyone who meets eligibility can be selected on merit.
- UR (PWD-LV)
- An open-category seat restricted only by the horizontal condition (must be PWD-LV). It remains open across SC/ST/OBC/UR among PWD-LV candidates.
- Migration (mobility)
- A reserved-category candidate can be selected in UR on merit; this does not reduce the reserved quota.
- Adjustment (for horizontal reservation)
- The process of placing selected horizontal-category candidates into the appropriate category slots, starting with merit placement in the open/UR list.
- Relaxation bar for UR
- If a candidate relied on category-based relaxations (age/qualifications etc.) unavailable to UR, they cannot claim a UR seat; UR must be competed for on the same standards.
5) Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision establishes and reinforces a clear operational rule: a UR (PWD-LV) vacancy is a merit-based post
open to all PWD-LV candidates irrespective of vertical category. Any interpretation of recruitment notes that blocks such
merit-based migration is inconsistent with settled reservation law and risks violating Articles 14 and 16.
Equally, the judgment safeguards the integrity of open competition by reiterating that migration into UR cannot be founded on relaxations
unavailable to UR candidates. In combination, the ruling strengthens doctrinal coherence in the administration of horizontal reservations
and prevents “UR” from being misread as a separate protected class.