#Reservation Policy

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 Supreme Court held that a person’s conversion from Hinduism to Islam does not automatically carry forward their former Hindu backward-caste status for claiming Muslim reservation benefits under Article 16(4). The ruling clarifies that caste identity is religion-specific and cannot be transferred across faiths, affecting individuals seeking community certificates after conversion.

The Karnataka HC struck down the state’s move to raise SC/ST reservation to 56%, ruling it violates the 50% ceiling. The verdict impacts SC/ST aspirants for jobs and education in Karnataka, upholding the equality-affirmative action balance.

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.

The Delhi High Court affirmed that the executive alone may adjust reservation allocations, barring the de-reservation of OBC-reserved DNB seats for unreserved candidates after counselling. This safeguards OBC candidates’ entitlement in medical postgraduate admissions and limits unilateral seat reallocation by institutions.

Bombay High Court directs the Scheduled Tribe Caste Certificate Scrutiny Committee to decide Halba ST claims within three months and permits interim admission to petitioners without caste validity certificates pending adjudication. The ruling ensures timely resolution of caste claims while safeguarding educational opportunities for eligible candidates.

The Allahabad High Court held that cancelling reservations under Rule 8-A cannot retroactively invalidate promotions made under a prior, general government order that did not rely on reservation quotas. This protects the legitimate expectation of employees promoted through transparent, non-reservation-based processes, reinforcing that administrative reversals must respect the legal basis of the original appointment.

Karnataka High Court mandates acceptance of valid 2017-18 caste certificates for Common Entrance Test registration, ensuring students' educational rights under internal reservation categories. The ruling grants a 21-day compliance window, reinforcing administrative accountability in caste certificate validation.

MP High Court reinstates an Anganwadi Sahayika whose appointment was cancelled for late caste certificate submission, emphasizing that administrative fairness does not extend to condoning procedural lapses post-deadline. The ruling underscores that reservation eligibility hinges on timely compliance with documentary requirements, protecting merit-based selections from retrospective challenges.

The Allahabad High Court ruled that a candidate's inadvertent selection of an incorrect reservation category, without availing any benefit under it, does not justify cancellation of candidature. This protects applicants from punitive consequences for clerical mistakes when they remain eligible under their true category, reinforcing procedural fairness in public recruitment.

Allahabad High Court ruled that the methodology under Section 9(1)(c) of the Delimitation Act, 2002, for reserving SC/ST constituencies based on population proportion is constitutionally valid and not arbitrary. The judgment reinforces judicial deference to legislative policy in electoral reservation matters, impacting future delimitation exercises.

Allahabad High Court reaffirms that under Article 341 of the Constitution, only Parliament holds the power to amend the Scheduled Castes list. The court dismissed a petition seeking inclusion of castes like Nishad, Kewat, Mallah, and Bind, ruling that judicial authorities cannot treat unlisted castes as synonyms of listed ones, reinforcing the exclusive legislative authority in reservation matters.

Himachal Pradesh High Court rules that candidates who avail age relaxation under reserved categories are disqualified from migrating to general category posts. The judgment reinforces strict compliance with recruitment rules, impacting merit list preparation and reservation policies.

The Allahabad High Court has ruled that if reserved category cut-off marks exceed those of the general category in a preliminary examination, it undermines constitutional equality under Articles 14 and 16. Candidates scoring above the general category cut-off but barred from proceeding due to an inflated reserved category threshold must be afforded relief after result declaration, ensuring merit and equity are not in conflict.

MP High Court rules that disqualifying a disabled candidate based on an uncommunicated medical report violates procedural fairness. The court mandates re-examination by an authorized board, reinforcing the right to a fair hearing in reservation claims.