Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
10. By now, it is a well-settled principle of law that a candidate belonging to any of the vertical reservation categories who on the basis of his own merit is entitled to be selected in the open or general category, will be selected against the general category and his selection would not be counted against the quota reserved for such vertical reservation categories. Reliance in this respect could be placed on the 9-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Indra Sawhney and Others v. Union of India and Others,3 and in the cases of R.K. Sabharwal and Others v. State of Punjab and Others4 and Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul and Others.5
11. However, this Court, in the case of Saurav Yadav (supra), had [2019] 15 SCR 93 : (2020) 17 SCC 465 : 2019 INSC 1362 [1992] Supp. 2 SCR 454 : 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 [1995] 2 SCR 35 : (1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 INSC 108 [1996] 2 SCR 695 : (1996) 3 SCC 253 : 1996 INSC 258 [2024] 8 S.C.R. Ramnaresh @ Rinku Kushwah and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others an occasion to consider for the first time as to whether the said principle laid down in the case of Indra Sawhney (supra) and followed subsequently would also apply to the cases of horizontal reservation. Prior to the said judgment, there were conflicting views of different High Courts. This Court, after surveying various earlier pronouncements and considering the views as expressed by the High Courts, observed thus: “43. Finally, we must say that the steps indicated by the High Court of Gujarat in para 69 of its judgment in Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai [Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai v. Shital Amrutlal Nishar, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2592] contemplate the correct and appropriate procedure for considering and giving effect to both vertical and horizontal reservations. The illustration given by us deals with only one possible dimension. There could be multiple such possibilities. Even going by the present illustration, the first female candidate allocated in the vertical column for Scheduled Tribes may have secured higher position than the candidate at Serial No. 64. In that event said candidate must be shifted from the category of Scheduled Tribes to Open/General category causing a resultant vacancy in the vertical column of Scheduled Tribes. Such vacancy must then enure to the benefit of the candidate in the waiting list for Scheduled Tribes-Female. The steps indicated by the Gujarat High Court will take care of every such possibility. It is true that the exercise of laying down a procedure must necessarily be left to the authorities concerned but we may observe that one set out in said judgment will certainly satisfy all claims and will not lead to any incongruity as highlighted by us in the preceding paragraphs.”
12. It could thus be seen that, this Court approved the steps indicated by the High Court of Gujarat in paragraph 69 of its judgment in the case of Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai v. Shital Amrutlal Nishar6 for considering and giving effect to both vertical and horizontal reservations. In the said case, this Court was considering horizontal reservation for the female candidates. It was observed 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2592 924 that a meritorious reserved category candidate who is entitled to the General category of the said horizontal reservation on his own merit, will have to be allotted a seat from the said General category of the horizontal reservation. Meaning thereby such a candidate cannot be counted in a horizontal seat reserved for the category of vertical reservation like SC/ST.
13. It will also be apposite to refer to the following observations made by S. Ravindra Bhat, J. in his concurring judgment: “66. I would conclude by saying that reservations, both vertical and horizontal, are method of ensuring representation in public services. These are not to be seen as rigid “slots”, where a candidate’s merit, which otherwise entitles her to be shown in the open general category, is foreclosed, as the consequence would be, if the State’s argument is accepted. Doing so, would result in a communal reservation, where each social category is confined within the extent of their reservation, thus negating merit. The open category is open to all, and the only condition for a candidate to be shown in it is merit, regardless of whether reservation benefit of either type is available to her or him.” [emphasis supplied]
14. It could thus be seen that the learned Judge clearly observed that the horizontal as well as the vertical reservation would not be seen as rigid “slots”, where a candidate’s merit, which otherwise entitles her or him to be shown in the open general category, is foreclosed. It was observed that by doing so, it would result in communal reservation, where each social category is confined within the extent of their reservation, thus negating merit. It was observed that the open category is open to all, and the only condition for a candidate to be shown in it is merit, regardless of whether reservation benefit of either type is available to her or him.
15. The said view was reiterated by this Court in the case of Sadhana Singh Dangi and Others v. Pinki Asati and Others.7 (2022) 12 SCC 401 : 2021 INSC 907 [2024] 8 S.C.R. Ramnaresh @ Rinku Kushwah and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
16. In view of the settled position of law as laid down by this Court in the case of Saurav Yadav (supra) and reiterated in the case of Sadhana Singh Dangi (supra), the methodology adopted by the respondents in compartmentalizing the different categories in the horizontal reservation and restricting the migration of the meritorious reserved category candidates to the unreserved seats is totally unsustainable. In view of the law laid down by this Court, the meritorious candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC, who on their own merit, were entitled to be selected against the UR-GS quota, have been denied the seats against the open seats in the GS quota.
17. It is to be noted that, in the present case, the cut-off for UR candidates was much less as compared to the cut-off for SC/ST/ OBC/EWS candidates. As such, the respondents ought to have admitted the present appellants against the UR-GS categories. It is further to be noted that many seats from UR-GS category were required to be transferred to the General category.
18. Having held that the appellants were deprived of their legitimate claim of admission against the UR-GS category in the Academic Session 2023-24, and since the admission process for the said academic session is complete, we will have to consider as to what relief should be granted in favour of the appellants.
19. It will be apposite to refer to the observations made by this Court in the judgment of S. Krishna Sradha (supra), which read thus: “13. In light of the discussion/observations made hereinabove, a meritorious candidate/student who has been denied an admission in MBBS course illegally or irrationally by the authorities for no fault of his/her and who has approached the Court in time and so as to see that such a meritorious candidate may not have to suffer for no fault of his/her, we answer the reference as under: 13.1. That in a case where candidate/student has approached the court at the earliest and without any delay and that the question is with respect to the admission in medical course all the efforts shall be made by the court concerned to dispose of the proceedings by giving priority and at the earliest. 13.2. Under exceptional circumstances, if the court finds that there is no fault attributable to the candidate and the 926 candidate has pursued his/her legal right expeditiously without any delay and there is fault only on the part of the authorities and/or there is apparent breach of rules and regulations as well as related principles in the process of grant of admission which would violate the right of equality and equal treatment to the competing candidates and if the time schedule prescribed — 30th September, is over, to do the complete justice, the Court under exceptional circumstances and in rarest of rare cases direct the admission in the same year by directing to increase the seats, however, it should not be more than one or two seats and such admissions can be ordered within reasonable time i.e. within one month from 30th September i.e. cut-off date and under no circumstances, the Court shall order any admission in the same year beyond 30th October. However, it is observed that such relief can be granted only in exceptional circumstances and in the rarest of rare cases. In case of such an eventuality, the Court may also pass an order cancelling the admission given to a candidate who is at the bottom of the merit list of the category who, if the admission would have been given to a more meritorious candidate who has been denied admission illegally, would not have got the admission, if the Court deems it fit and proper, however, after giving an opportunity of hearing to a student whose admission is sought to be cancelled. 13.3. In case the Court is of the opinion that no relief of admission can be granted to such a candidate in the very academic year and wherever it finds that the action of the authorities has been arbitrary and in breach of the rules and regulations or the prospectus affecting the rights of the students and that a candidate is found to be meritorious and such candidate/student has approached the court at the earliest and without any delay, the court can mould the relief and direct the admission to be granted to such a candidate in the next academic year by issuing appropriate directions by directing to increase in the number of seats as may be considered appropriate in the case and in case of such an eventuality and if it [2024] 8 S.C.R. Ramnaresh @ Rinku Kushwah and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others is found that the management was at fault and wrongly denied the admission to the meritorious candidate, in that case, the Court may direct to reduce the number of seats in the management quota of that year, meaning thereby the student/students who was/were denied admission illegally to be accommodated in the next academic year out of the seats allotted in the management quota. 13.4. Grant of the compensation could be an additional remedy but not a substitute for restitutional remedies. Therefore, in an appropriate case the Court may award the compensation to such a meritorious candidate who for no fault of his/her has to lose one full academic year and who could not be granted any relief of admission in the same academic year.”
20. Undisputedly, the appellants who were meritorious and who could have been admitted against the UR-GS category were denied admission on account of an erroneous application of the methodology in applying the horizontal and vertical reservation. It is also not in dispute that many of the students, who secured much less marks than the appellants, have been admitted against the UR-GS seats. This is totally in contravention of the law laid down by this Court in the cases of Saurav Yadav (supra) and Sadhana Singh Dangi (supra). We therefore find that as held by this Court in the case of S. Krishna Sradha (supra), it will be appropriate to issue directions to the respondents to admit the appellants in the next Academic Session 2024-25 against the UR-GS seats. Vide order dated 12th August 2024, we have already directed 7 seats to be kept vacant in the event the appellants succeed. The appellants can be very well accommodated against the said seats.
21. In the rest, we pass the following order: (i) The appeals are allowed; (ii) The impugned judgments and orders dated 22nd December 2023 and 12th January 2024 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore in Writ Petition Nos. 23998 and 23437 of 2023, and High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior in Writ Petition No. 23060 of 2023 respectively are quashed and set aside; and 928 (iii) The respondents are directed to admit the appellants herein in the next Academic Session i.e. 2024-25 for MBBS Course against the seats reserved for UR-GS category.
22. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. No costs.. Result of the case: Appeals allowed. †Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey