news details |
|
|
| HC clarifies 4% reservation for physically challenged as overall horizontal quota | | | Early Times Report
JAMMU, Nov 11: A Division Bench of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court compirisng Justice Rajnesh Oswal and Justice Sanjay Dhar decied the question regarding reservation rules for physically challenged persons the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has clarified that the 4% reservation for physically challenged individuals, as outlined in the J&K Reservation Rules of 2005, constitutes an overall horizontal reservation, which applies broadly and does not operate as a compartmentalised category-specific quota.
DB observed that this court is of the considered view that the reservation of 4% provided to the physically challenged persons under the Reservation Rules of 2005, is an overall horizontal reservation and not compartmentalised horizontal reservation.
These observations came while hearing a petition by one Syed Shaifta Arifeen Balkhi, who challenged the selection of candidates for the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Jammu and Kashmir. A notification issued in August 2023 advertised 69 such positions, including three reserved for physically challenged candidates.
Syed Shaifta Arifeen Balkhi, who had participated in the examination under the Open Merit category, argued that the reservation for physically challenged candidates should be compartmentalised, meaning that the reserved seats should be allocated separately within each vertical category (e.g., Open Merit, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe).
The petitioner contended that by granting the reservation exclusively within the Open Merit category, the selection process disregarded this principle, resulting in the exclusion of candidates from other vertical categories who might have benefited from the physically challenged quota.
Meanwhile, the J&K Public Service Commission countered that its process complied strictly with the 2005 Reservation Rules, which classify the 4% quota as an overall horizontal reservation. As such, the quota should be applied to the total merit list rather than separately within each vertical category, they stated.
The Court engaged in an extensive analysis of horizontal reservation, distinguishing between overall and compartmentalised forms. Drawing from Supreme Court precedents, the Court explained the two primary types of horizontal reservation:
This approach allocates reserved seats within each vertical category independently. For example, if reservations for physically challenged individuals were compartmentalised, the seats would be divided across categories such as Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, and Open Merit.
DB observed that Overall Horizontal Reservation is calculated based on the total seats, with physically challenged candidates allocated across the vertical categories according to their merit ranking within that overall pool. The Court examined the wording in Rule 4 of the J&K Reservation Rules, 2005, particularly Explanation B. The rules specify that candidates benefiting from horizontal reservation should be adjusted within their respective vertical categories.
DB found that the J&K Reservation Rules explicitly adopt an overall approach for physically challenged individuals, requiring them to be placed within their respective vertical category based on merit. The Court added that the architectural framework of Explanation B in Rule 4 confirms this interpretation, stating that the intent is to interlink the reservations across categories, rather than confining them within each vertical classification.
Further, the Court observed that the petitioner's reliance on a 2018 government memorandum and Office Memorandum dated 15.01.2018 was misplaced. These documents have not been formally adopted in the UT of Jammu and Kashmir, and therefore, the guidelines mentioned therein do not hold regulatory authority in this case, the court opined.
Concluding that the 4% reservation for physically challenged individuals under the J&K Reservation Rules of 2005 is indeed an overall horizontal reservation, the Court found the petition devoid of any merit and dismissed the same.
—JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
