#horizontal reservation

The CAT Bangalore ruled that vertical reservation (SC) must be applied before horizontal reservation (PwBD), holding that a candidate qualifying on SC merit cannot be denied appointment for failing the PwBD benchmark. This clarifies the hierarchy between vertical and horizontal quotas in Civil Services appointments, protecting SC candidates who meet merit criteria from exclusion due to disability benchmark shortfalls.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that reservations for persons with physical disabilities are a horizontal reservation under Article 16(4) and therefore cannot be further earmarked for Scheduled Caste candidates. This invalidates any sub-reservation scheme that tries to allocate a share of disability seats to SCs, affecting future recruitment drives that combine disability and caste criteria.

Allahabad HC refuses to grant equitable relief to a candidate who claimed Outstanding Sportsperson quota without uploading the required certificate, despite her eligibility. The court permits provisional exam participation but upholds rejection due to strict compliance with advertisement clauses, emphasizing that horizontal reservation benefits cannot be claimed without documentary proof.

Tripura High Court rules that reservation for Persons with Disabilities under the RPwD Act is horizontal and must be applied post merit-based selection, not by pre-allocating posts within SC/ST/UR quotas. The court mandates interlocking adjustment only after preparing selection lists on merit, ensuring fairness in public employment for PWDs.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court ruled that candidates under horizontal reservation (SC-BPL) who qualify above the General category cut-off must be considered for General category posts even when no separate vertical reservation vacancy exists. This affirms that horizontal reservations under Article 14 operate cross-cuttingly, ensuring equitable access without requiring parallel vacancies in every sub-category.

Supreme Court clarifies that Persons with Disabilities (Low Vision) from reserved categories can vie for unreserved PWD-LV posts based on merit, rejecting restrictive interpretations. The ruling ensures equitable competition while upholding constitutional principles of reservation and merit-based appointment.

Rajasthan High Court rules that merely subsuming transgender persons under OBC reservation violates the NALSA judgment, directing the state to implement a 3% horizontal quota and form a committee to design inclusive policies. The ruling sets a precedent for affirmative action beyond vertical reservations, impacting constitutional rights and state obligations under Articles 14, 15, and 16.

Delhi High Court holds that ex-servicemen availing age relaxation cannot claim migration to unreserved category, even with higher marks, if recruitment rules explicitly bar such migration.

CAT holds that when an Open Merit vacancy arises post-correction of reservation, the original merit order must be restored before operating waiting lists to protect reserved category candidates' rights.