VASANTH KUMAR G vs DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING on 3 November 2026

O R D E R

PER: JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)

This application is filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs: “a) Issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the allotment of service of Indian Revenue Service (Income Tax) to the respondents No. 4 and 5 by allocation order published on 13.09.2024 (under Annexure A19) by the respondent No. 1, in so far as it relates to the respondent No. 4 and 5 and grant all consequential relief:

b) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent No. 1 to appoint the applicant to the Indian Revenue Service (IT Grade-A) considering the merit of the applicant and grant all consequential benefits.

(c) Issue such other appropriate writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit to grant in the interest of justice and equity, including the award of costs of this application.”

2. Facts in brief as narrated by the applicant are that pursuant to Respondent No. 2 - Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) inviting applications for the Civil Services Examinations, 2023 to fill approximately 1105 vacancies with 37 reserved for Persons with Benchmark Disability (PwBD), 15 vacancies for locomotor disability, the applicant applied for the Preliminary Examination under the Scheduled Caste category and PwBD category. The applicant, clearing the Preliminary Examination held on 28.05.2023, appeared for the Main Examination held between 15.09.2023 to 24.09.2023 and secured 743 marks. The applicant being eligible for Personality Test, submitted Detailed Application Form II, providing preferences in services. The applicant secured 165 marks in the Personality Test and an aggregate of 908 marks including the Main Examination marks. The applicant appeared before the Medical Board and as per the medical examination report dated 15.02.2024, his disability was recorded as 29%, which is less than the benchmark disability of 40%. UPSC published list dated

16.04.2024, of candidates recommended to the Union of India for appointment to different services based on merit and the applicant was found at Sl. No. 902 with a score of 908. The Respondent No. 4, who is the last candidate in the Scheduled Caste category, who has been allotted IRS (IT), with the rank of 943 recommended for selection with a score of 941. It is the grievance of the applicant that though he was recommended by the UPSC for selection, he was not allocated any service and persons below him were allocated. The representation dated 31.07.2024 submitted by the applicant has not yielded any response. The applicant submitted a query dated 05.08.2024 under the Right to Information Act, 2005, seeking information relating to non-allocation of service to the applicant in spite of his merit which was declined stating that no such information could be provided under the Right to Information Act. Appeal preferred against the said order under the Right to Information Act came to be rejected vide order dated 16.10.2024. However, the Respondent No. 4 having secured a score of 901 with rank of 943 and the Respondent No. 5 with a score of 901 and rank of 941, respectively are allocated IRS (IT). Being aggrieved by the non-selection of the applicant under the SC category in spite of his superior merit as adjudged by the UPSC and allocation as well as appointment of the less meritorious candidates in preference to the applicant, the applicant has preferred this OA.

3. Learned senior counsel Shri P.S. Rajagopal along with learned counsel Shri Jayanth Dev Kumar representing the applicant submitted that the applicant being more meritorious as adjudged by the UPSC in the competitive examination conducted for the purpose, is fully eligible to be included in the selection list above the private respondents. The applicant has participated in the examination without taking any relaxations such as age relaxations or relaxations in number of attempts etc., as applicable to a candidate under the Physically Handicapped category. The applicant has been selected on his own merit under the SC category with a score of 908 marks and 902 rank, as against the minimum qualifying marks of 890 secured by the last recommended candidate under SC. Placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Ors., (2007) 8 SCC 785, learned counsel submitted that the correct course is to first fill up the Open Competition quota (50%) on the basis of merit; then fill up each of the social reservation quotas, i.e., SC, ST, OBC; the third step would be to find out how many candidates belonging to special reservations have been selected on the above basis. Learned counsel has further referred to the order of this Tribunal in OA No. 872/2017 dated 20.12.2019 (Shri Bhyrappa P.V. vs. Union of India and ors.) in support of his contention that the category of PwBD is clearly a horizontal reservation, the order of merit has to be organized first in terms of the various services in a vertical manner for all the social categories viz., SC, ST and OBC.

4. Learned counsel Shri S. Prakash Shetty representing Respondent Nos. 1 and 3, referring to the reply statement filed on behalf of Respondent No. 1, submitted that the Respondent No.1’s role is limited to allocation of services to the eligible candidates keeping in view their rank in the all India merit list as recommended by UPSC in the final result, preferences indicated by them for various participating services, medical status, availability of number of vacancies in their category at their turn and fulfilment of special eligibility criteria in case of the PwBD candidates in terms of functional classification and physical requirements consistent with requirements of the service/post as may be prescribed by its Cadre Controlling Authority. The applicant has applied for Civil Services Examination (CSE)-2023 under Locomotor Disabilities (LD) sub-category of Persons with Benchmark Disability (PwBD). Thereafter, the UPSC had recommended the name of the applicant at Sl. No. 902 against the vacancies reserved for LD sub-category under PwBD on the basis of CSE-2023.The applicant belongs to SC category. After medical examination, the applicant was declared as an invalid PwBD candidate under the Locomotor Disabilities sub-category with 29% disability by the Benchmark Disability Expert Panel (BDEP), All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi-Central Standing Medical Board (CSMB). Pursuant to an appeal preferred by the applicant against the medical finding, appellate medical examination was conducted at Appellate Disability Medical Board (ADMB) constituted at Army Hospital (R&R), Delhi on 18.03.2024 as per the provisions of CSE Rules, 2023. The Appellate Disability Medical Board, Delhi declared the percentage of disability of the applicant as 23% in relation to whole body. That in view of the applicant not found to be eligible under the PwBD - LD category as per the findings of the CSMB and ADMB, applicant could not be allocated to any service as per the CSE Rules-2023. Placing reliance on Rule 26 of the CSE Rules, 2023, learned counsel submitted that once a candidate has chosen a reserved category, no request shall be entertained for change to other category, viz., SC to ST, ST to SC, OBC to SC/ST or SC/ST to OBC, SC to EWS, EWS to SC, ST to EWS, EWS to ST, OBC to EWS, EWS to OBC etc. Further, no candidate belonging to any sub-category of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) shall be allowed to change the sub-category of disability.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant cannot claim allocation against the vacancy earmarked for non- PwBD under UR/EWS/OBC/SC/ST category as well as for Hearing Impairment (HI)/Visual Impairment (VI)/Multiple Disabilities (MD) sub-category. The candidate claiming reservation in a specific category cannot be considered against another reserved category vacancies. The applicant is attempting to compare his ranking with those candidates who had applied with the SC category. The applicant though belongs to Scheduled Caste, had consciously applied under the category of PwBD. Rule 26 of the CSE Rules, 2023 as well as Clause No. 12 of the UPSC Notification dated 01.02.2023 prohibits change of category once application is filed. Under no circumstances, the applicant is

entitled to seek any change of category at this stage, or entitled to compare his ranking in PwBD category with the rankings of 4th and 5th respondents in the SC category.

6. Learned counsel Shri Vishnu Bhat representing Respondent No. 2-UPSC submitted that the recommendation made by the UPSC specifies both the categories of the applicant i.e., SC and PwBD. No recommendation is made only under PwBD category. Applicant ought to have been considered under SC category having regard to his merit notwithstanding his percentage of disability below 40% prescribed.

7. Since no reply statement was filed on behalf of Respondent No. 2 and on the other hand Respondent No. 1 asserted that the recommendation of the applicant was made by UPSC under PwBD category, we had directed the UPSC to file an affidavit inasmuch as the principles followed in preparing the merit list considering the PwBD category under different reservation categories and further to clarify whether the applicant was considered in the preliminary examination, final examination and interview under PwBD category alone or SC and PwBD category or SC category alone. Though providing reasonable opportunity for the UPSC to file such an affidavit, the same is not filed. Given the circumstances, we deem it fit to proceed on the basis of the available records coupled with the oral submissions of the learned counsel for the UPSC that the recommendation of the applicant was made under both the categories i.e., SC and PwBD.

8. Private Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 remained ex-parte.

9. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.

10. The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India notified the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2023 vide Notification dated 01.02.2023 to be held by the UPSC for the purpose of filling vacancies in various Central Services, including Indian Administrative Services, Indian Revenue Services etc.

11. To effectively adjudicate the controversy at hand, it is essential to conduct a structured analysis of the relevant CSE Rules, 2023. In terms of Rule (2) of the said

Notification, reservation will be made for candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Economically Weaker Sections as well as candidates belonging to Persons with Benchmark Disability categories in respect of vacancies as may be fixed by the government. Rule 13 provides for Detailed Application Form-I (DAF-I) for The Main Examination. As per Rule

(1), before the commencement of interview/personality test of the examination, a candidate shall be required to mandatorily indicate order of preferences only for those services which are participating in the Civil Services Examination, 2023 and for which the candidate is interested to be allocated to in case of eventual selection, in the online Detailed Application Form- II (DAF-II).

12. Rule 20 (1) envisages that after interview/personality test, the candidates will be arranged by the Commission in the order of merit as determined by the aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate in the Main Examination. Thereafter, the Commission shall, for the purpose of recommending candidates against unreserved vacancies, fix a qualifying mark (general qualifying standard) with reference to the number of unreserved vacancies to be filled up on the basis of the Main Examination. For the purpose of recommending reserved category candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Economically Weaker Sections and candidates belonging to Persons with Benchmark Disability category against reserved vacancies, the Commission may relax the general qualifying standard with reference to number of reserved vacancies to be filled up in each of these categories on the basis of the Main Examination. Proviso appended thereto contemplates that the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Economically Weaker Sections and Persons with Benchmark Disability who have not availed of any of the concessions or relaxations in the eligibility or the selection criteria, at any stage of the examination and who after taking into account the general qualifying standards are found fit for recommendation by the Commission, shall not be recommended against the vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Economically Weaker Sections and Persons with Benchmark Disability but shall in the first instance be recommended by the Commission against the unreserved vacancies.

13. Rule 20 (2) provides that while making Service Allocation, the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Economically Weaker Sections and Persons with Benchmark Disability recommended against unreserved vacancies may be adjusted against reserved vacancies by the Government, if by this process they get a service of higher choice in the order of their preference.

14. Rule 20 (4) (a) (1) provides that while recommending the candidates, the Commission shall, in the first instance, take into account the total number of vacancies in all categories. The total number of recommended candidates shall be reduced by the number of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Economically Weaker Sections and Persons with Benchmark Disability who acquire the merit at or above the fixed general qualifying standard without availing of any concession or relaxation in the eligibility or selection criteria in terms of the proviso to sub-rule (1). In terms of Rule 20 (4) (a) (2), while exercising the method defined in sub-rule (4)(a)(1), due consideration may be taken to secure the vacancy(ies) for PwBD candidates expected to be recommended from Reserve List, and if required, the total number of recommended candidates shall be reduced appropriately in addition to reduction as per sub-rule

(4) (a)(1).

15. As per Rule 20 (5), the candidates recommended in terms of the provisions of sub-rule (4), shall be allocated by the Government to the Services and where certain vacancies still remain to be filled up, the Government may forward a requisition to the Commission requesting it to recommend, in order of merit, from the Consolidated Reserve List, the same number of candidates as requisitioned for the purpose of filling up the unfilled vacancies in each category.

16. Rule 25 deals with reservation against vacancies for Persons with Benchmark Disability. The eligibility for availing reservation against the vacancies reserved for the Persons with Benchmark Disabilities shall be the same as prescribed in "The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act, 2016)".

17. In terms of Rule 26 (1), if the category indicated by a candidate in the application form for the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination is unreserved category but the candidate subsequently writes to the Commission to change the category to a reserved one, such request shall not be entertained by the Commission. Further, once a candidate has chosen a reserved category, no request shall be entertained for change to other reserved category viz., SC to ST, ST to SC, OBC to SC/ST or SC/ST to OBC, SC to EWS, EWS to SC, ST to EWS, EWS to ST, OBC to EWS, EWS to OBC, etc. No reserved category candidates other than those who qualified each stage of examination on general standard, shall be allowed to change (on their request or as decided by the Commission/Government based on the documents submitted by them) their category from reserved to unreserved or claim the vacancies (Service/Cadre) for unreserved category after the declaration of final result by UPSC. In cases where such candidates do not qualify on general standard, their candidature shall be cancelled. Further, no candidate belonging to any sub-category of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD) shall be allowed to change the sub-category of disability.

18. Rule 27 (1) provides that a candidate will be eligible to get the benefit of community-based reservation only in case the particular community/caste to which the candidate belongs is included in the list of reserved communities issued by the Central Government. Rule provides that candidates seeking reservation/relaxation benefits available for SC/ST/OBC/EWS/ PwBD/Ex-Servicemen must ensure that they are entitled to such reservation/relaxation as per eligibility prescribed in the Rules/Notice. They should also be in possession of all the requisite certificates in prescribed format in support of their claim as stipulated in the Rules/Notice for such benefits by the closing date of the application for Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2023.

19. The Respondent No. 2, UPSC, invited applications for the Civil Services Examination, 2023 by recruitment notification dated 01.02.2023. The said recruitment notification was issued to fill approximately 1105 vacancies with 37 reserved for Persons with Benchmark Disability, 15 vacancies for locomotor disability including dwarfism. The notification further provided that reservation will be made for candidates belonging to inter alia Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe, Persons with Benchmark Disability, in respect of vacancies as may be fixed by the Government.

20. The applicant coming under the Scheduled Caste category having dwarfism, applied for the Preliminary Examination for the Civil Services Examination, 2023. The application submitted by the applicant for Preliminary Examination (Annexure A5) discloses that he claimed as a Scheduled Caste candidate belonging to Locomotor Disability, etc. (under the Note, Locomotor Disability category specifies dwarfism also). The Scheduled Caste category reservation was claimed by the applicant with the Community Certificate issued by the Tahsildar, Nelamangala Taluk, Bangalore Rural District. The applicant cleared the Preliminary Examination held on 28.05.2023 and qualified for the Civil Services Main Examination securing 87.54 in Paper I and 82.50 in Paper II. The cut-off marks prescribed for Scheduled Caste candidate in the Preliminary Examination was 59.25. The applicant appeared for the Main Examination held between 15.09.2023 to 24.09.2023 and secured 743 marks.

21. As per the Detailed Application Form-I (DAF-I) submitted by the applicant for the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2023, in Sl. No. 8 (a) Community column, it is shown as SC (1). In Sl. No. 8 (a) and 8 (a.1), the applicant has claimed as under:

“8.(a) Community

| SC (1)

8. (a.1) Do you want to change your Category from SC/ST/OBC/ EWS to Unreserved

| NO”

22. In Sl. No. 9.1.(a), it is claimed as under:

“9.1.(a) Whether you are a PwBD/PwD candidate | PwBD

(b) (1) Category |LOCOMOTOR DISABILITY ETC”

23. In Sl. No. 9(b).2, 9 (c) (h), (j) and (k), it is stated as under:

(b) .2 Indicate Form Type of the Certificate of Disability

| Form VII

(c) Percentage of disability as indicated in the Certificate of Disability

|GREATER OR EQUAL TO 40%

(h) Are you a PwBD/PwD candidate [as per column

9.1. (a)] having physical limitation to write? (If Yes, upload scanned copy of the requisite certificate as per Appendix-V (for PwBD)/ Appendix-VII (for PwD) of the Notice of CSE, 2023 dated 1st February, 2023 | NO

(j) Would you require scribe in the Examination

| NO

(k) Would you require any assistive device(s) | NO

24. The applicant submitted Detailed Application Form-II (DAF-II) for personality test providing preferences in services, with Indian Administrative Service as ‘1’ and Indian Revenue Service (Income Tax) as ‘2’. The applicant secured 165 marks in the personality test and an aggregate of 908 marks including the Main Examination marks. As per the marks sheet, result of the applicant was shown in the remarks column as ‘Recommended’ by the UPSC. The applicant being subjected to Medical Examination, the Medical Board recorded his disability as 29%. On appeal preferred by the applicant against the medical finding, further medical examination was conducted at Appellate Disability Medical Board, Army Hospital (R & R), Delhi on 18.03.2024. As per the report of the ADMB, the percentage of the disability of the applicant was declared as 23%.

25. The list published by the UPSC dated 16.04.2024 indicates the names of the candidates recommended to the Union of India for appointment to different services based on merit and the applicant's name figures at Sl. No. 902 with a score of 908. The real controversy begins from here as the Union of India, though relies upon the very same recommended list, contends that the applicant's candidature was recommended only under the category of PwBD-1 and not under the category of SC. In the reply statement filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 1-Union of India, it is the specific stance of the Respondent No. 1 that "the applicant had applied for Civil Services Examination (CSE)-2023 under Locomotor Disabilities (LD) sub-category of Persons with Benchmark Disability (PwBD). Thereafter, the UPSC had recommended the name of the applicant at Sl. No. 902 against the vacancies reserved for LD sub-category of PwBD category on the basis of CSE-2023. The applicant belongs to SC category."

26. In the list of recommended candidates forwarded by UPSC to Union of India, the particulars of the applicant are shown as under:

“ROLL_NO NAME COMM PwBD

W_TOTAL PT_MARKS F_TOTAL S.NO

3533825 VASANTH KUMAR G SC PwB D-1

902”

The names of the Respondent Nos. 5 and 4 are shown at Sl. No. 941 and 943, respectively in the list of recommended candidates of the UPSC forwarded to Union of India. Both these candidates are coming under the category of SC. Both these private respondents are allotted to the IRS (IT) service under SC category. As aforesaid, the rankings of these private respondents in the recommended list of the UPSC is below that of the applicant.

27. Now the primary question that arises for our consideration is, the applicant having applied both under SC category and PwBD category for Civil Services Examination, 2023, whether his candidature has to be considered first under SC category applying the vertical reservation based on the ranking shown in the recommended list of UPSC notwithstanding his disentitlement to reservation claimed under PwBD category i.e., the horizontal reservation?

28. It is not in dispute that the applicant has not claimed any relaxation on par with other PwBD candidates. Despite being meritorious under SC category, he has been denied the appointment on the ground that first PwBD category reservation has to be fixed. This view runs contrary to the established principles of law. Vide Rule 20 (4) (a) (1), it is specified that while recommending the candidates, the Commission shall, in the first instance, take into account the total number of vacancies in all categories. The total number of recommended candidates shall be reduced by the number of candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Economically Weaker Sections and Persons with Benchmark Disability who acquire the merit at or above the fixed general qualifying standard without availing of any concession or relaxation in the eligibility or selection criteria in terms of the proviso to sub-rule (1). This sub rule is in pari materia with Rule 16 (4) of CSE Rules, 2016 which has been considered by this Tribunal in Bhyrappa P.V., supra. In the said case, the applicant - Shri Bhyrappa P.V. - belonging to OBC category and also physically challenged under the LDCP sub-category had scored 997 marks in the Civil Services Examination, 2016 and the cut-off marks for the OBC candidates for selection was 951. He had secured the rank of 475 with marks of 997 in the overall merit list. The last candidate who was allotted to Indian Foreign Service under the OBC category was ranked at 615 with total marks of 988 and the last person to be included in IRS (IT) Group-A was ranked 734 with the marks of 970 and he has not claimed any relaxation in terms of age or attempts at the examination on par with other Physically Handicapped OBC candidates. Despite being meritorious than the other two selected persons, his allocation to any service was deferred due to limited preferences. On adjudicating upon the said issue, this Tribunal has observed thus: “9. Vide para-13(1), the respondents would make a concomitant claim that there is no concept of own merit in horizontal reservation. Taking cue from the Hon’ble Apex Court order(supra) that women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal reservation for women. The claim of the applicant is that he belongs to both OBC category as well as the Physically Disabled category. The medical board certified him for all services except the technical service specifically IRTS. Contrary to the claim of the respondents, there are no other standards for the 3 services the applicant has opted for i.e. IAS, IFA & IRS(IT) Gr.A except Rule-21 which we have already seen. The particular disabilities and services to which persons with such disabilities can be considered are mentioned in Appendix-IV. It is obvious that the respondents have considered persons with certain physical disabilities as being not capable of discharge of duties required in those particular services. We are unable to find any justification for this claim of the respondents. In other words, the nature of work in such services will be such that even persons with the disabilities as mentioned in Appendix-IV would be quite capable of discharging their duties without any detriment to the work output or efficiency. Further, there are no higher standards of physical or mental abilities required in these services. The applicant’s disability is only locomotive disability but otherwise he has been found to meet all the physical and medical standards as would be required from a non-PH candidate. The last point which the respondents make

is that certain posts are allocated for PH category in each service and the higher ranked people are accommodated in the said nominated posts in the category and thereafter only a vertical reservation is taken up. While on the one hand the respondents would quote the Hon’ble Apex Court judgment in Rajesh Kumar Daria stating very specifically that first it is the vertical reservation that has to be done and thereafter, horizontal reservation will come in, they continue to labour on the point of not having any vacancies for PH candidates in the said services. The category of PH is clearly a horizontal reservation and as we have already seen under Rule-16(4), the order of merit has to be organized first in terms of the various services in a vertical manner for all the social categories namely SC, ST & OBC. By all canons of natural justice and selection by merit, a candidate with higher marks should definitely find a place in the service requested by him provided he is well within the cut off marks. As we have already seen, the last candidate selected under OBC for IFS is ranked 615 while the applicant’s rank is 475. Similarly, the last person to be recommended for IRS(IT) under OBC category is ranked 734. The weird logic of the respondents in fixing first the post for physically challenged candidate and then denying it to a candidate belonging to OBC who has higher merit than the last selected candidate defies logic and is against all judicial wisdom and their own rules. Therefore, we hold that the applicant is eligible for being appointed to IFS as well as the IRS(IT) Gr.A as per his choice and apparently he has chosen IFS as the second option after IAS to which, of course, he is not eligible. The respondents are therefore directed to issue necessary orders for recommendation and other concerned departments of the Government viz., DoP&T and MEA should pass necessary orders for giving him appointment which he has requested with all consequential benefits. He should be ordered to be belonging to the concerned service based on the results of Civil Services Examination-2016 with appropriate seniority and other consequential benefits. This they shall do so within a period of two(2) months from the date of issue of this order. The applicant is at liberty to choose either IFS or IRS (IT) Gr.A and the respondents shall take necessary action accordingly.

10. The OA is allowed with the above observations. No costs.”

29. It is beneficial to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria, supra, the relevant portion of which is quoted hereunder for ready reference: “9. The second relates to the difference between the nature of vertical reservation and horizontal reservation. Social reservations in favour of SC, ST and OBC under Article 16(4) are “vertical reservations”. Special reservations in favour of physically handicapped, women etc., under Articles 16(1) or 15(3) are “horizontal reservations”. Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a Backward Class under Article 16(4), the candidates belonging to such Backward Class, may compete for non reserved posts and if they are appointed to the non-reserved posts on their own merit, their number will not be counted against the quota reserved for respective Backward Class. Therefore, if the number of SC candidates, who by their own merit, get selected to open competition vacancies, equals or even exceeds the percentage of posts reserved for SC candidates, it cannot be said that the reservation quota for SCs has been filled. The entire reservation quota will be intact and available in addition to those selected under Open Competition category. [Vide - Indra Sawhney (1992 Supp (3) SCC 217), R. K. Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab (1995 (2) SCC 745), Union of India vs. Virpal Singh Chauhan (1995 (6) SCC 684 and Ritesh R. Sah vs. Dr. Y. L. Yamul (1996 (3) SCC 253)]. But the aforesaid principle applicable to vertical (social) reservations will not apply to horizontal (special) reservations. Where a special reservation for women is provided within the social reservation for Scheduled Castes, the proper procedure is first to fill up the quota for Scheduled Castes in order of merit and then find out the number of candidates among them who belong to the special reservation group of “Scheduled Caste women”. If the number of women in such list is equal to or more than the number of special reservation quota, then there is no need for further selection towards the special reservation quota. Only if there is any shortfall, the requisite number of scheduled caste women shall have to be taken by deleting the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of the list relating to

Scheduled Castes. To this extent, horizontal (special) reservation differs from vertical (social) reservation. Thus women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal reservation for women. Let us illustrate by an example :

If 19 posts are reserved for SCs (of which the quota for women is four), 19 SC candidates shall have to be first listed in accordance with merit, from out of the successful eligible candidates. If such list of 19 candidates contains four SC woman candidates, then there is no need to disturb the list by including any further SC woman candidate. On the other hand, if the list of 19 SC candidates contains only two woman candidates, then the next two SC woman candidates in accordance with merit, will have to be included in the list and corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of such list shall have to be deleted, so as to ensure that the final 19 selected SC candidates contain four woman SC candidates. [But if the list of 19 SC candidates contains more than four woman candidates, selected on own merit, all of them will continue in the list and there is no question of deleting the excess woman candidates on the ground that “SC-women” have been selected in excess of the prescribed internal quota of four.]

10. In this case, the number of candidates to be selected under general category (open competition), were 59, out of which 11 were earmarked for women. When the first 59 from among the 261 successful candidates were taken and listed as per merit, it contained 11 woman candidates, which was equal to the quota for “general category women”. There was thus no need for any further selection of woman candidates under the special reservation for women. But what RPSC did was to take only the first 48 candidates in the order of merit (which contained 11 women) and thereafter, fill the next 11 posts under the general category with woman candidates. As a result, we find that among 59 general category candidates in all 22 women have been selected consisting of eleven woman candidates selected on their own merit (candidates at Sl.Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 19, 21, 25, 31, 35 and 41 of the Selection List) and another eleven

(candidates at Sl.Nos.54, 61, 62, 63, 66, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79 and 80 of the Selection List) included under reservation quota for “general category women”. This is clearly impermissible. The process of selections made by RPSC amounts to treating the 20% reservation for women as a vertical reservation, instead of being a horizontal reservation within the vertical reservation.”

In terms of the legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria, supra, followed by this Tribunal in Bhyrappa P.V., supra, first, vertical reservation quota under SC category has to be counted against the horizontal reservation for PwBD.

30. Applying the vertical reservation first, the applicant certainly has to be considered for selection by merit having regard to the higher marks secured in SC category than the selected candidates – private respondents for IRS (IT) service. Indisputably, the private respondents selected under SC category for IRS (IT) are ranked at 941 and 943 while the applicant's rank is 902 as per the recommended list of UPSC. The logic of the Respondent No.1 in fixing first the post for physically challenged category – horizontal reservation and then for social reservation – vertical reservation is illegal. Denying appointment to SC candidate who claimed reservation under SC category and scored higher merit than the selected candidates is wholly untenable. The same runs against CSE Rules, 2023 and the judicial dictums.

31. It is the specific case of the Respondent No. 1 that the UPSC has recommended the applicant’s name in the recommended list only under the PwBD category and not under SC category which is totally not in conformity with the recommendation list of the UPSC placed on record by the Respondent No. 1 itself which categorically shows both SC and PwBD category relating to the applicant. Learned counsel for UPSC also admits the same that the applicant's candidature was recommended under both the categories of SC and PwBD. No other ground is urged on behalf of Respondent Nos. 1 and 3. That being the position, the argument of the Respondent No. 1 that the category of PwBD, a horizontal reservation has to be fixed first and then the vertical reservation has to be considered, is wholly unjustifiable and must fail. Respondent No. 1 is taking shelter under Rule 26 (1) to justify the denial of appointment in Service – CSE, 2023 to the applicant which is totally misconceived. Applicant is not claiming any change in the category. There being no bar, he has applied under both the categories of SC and PwBD. Rule 26 (1) is not applicable to the facts of the present case.

32. For the reasons aforesaid, we find merit in the OA. Accordingly, we pass the following:

:ORDER:

Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 are directed to issue necessary orders for providing the applicant an appointment in Indian Revenue Service (Income Tax) considering his candidature under SC category relating to the results of Civil Services Examination, 2023 with appropriate seniority and other consequential benefits.

Compliance shall be made in an expedite manner, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.

OA is allowed to the extent indicated above.

No order as to costs.

Sd/- Sd/- (DR. SANJIV KUMAR) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)

MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J)

/ksk/