1 2026:CGHC:23212 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5409 of 2021 1 - Umesh Kumar Shrivas S/o Chhedi Lal Shrivas Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Sonarpara, Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate, Education Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) --- Respondent(s) WITH WPS No. 5418 of 2021 1 - Umesh Kumar Shrivas S/o Chhedi Lal Shrivas Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No. 04, Sonarpara, Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Director Directorate, Education Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) WITH 2 WPS No. 5853 of 2021 1 - Pramod Kumar Sahu S/o Santu Ram Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o 101, Gandhi Chowk, Dondekala, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kamta Prasad S/o Bhaiya Ram Aged About 27 Years R/o 101, Atal Chowk, Kundel, Dhamtari District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Directorate Education Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - Divisional Joint Director Bastar, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. 4 - Divisional Joint Director Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 5 - Divisional Joint Director Durg, District Durg Chhattsgarh. 6 - Divisional Joint Director Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 7 - Divisional Joint Director Sarguja, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) WITH WPS No. 504 of 2022 1 - Buddha Dev S/o Jethu Ram Aged About 28 Years R/o Temple Road Ranitarai, Durg, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Education Department , Mantralaya Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director Directorate Education Department Indirawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Education Officer Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 3 4 - Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal S/o Mulchand Jaiswal R/o Nimdha, Post Nimdha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh 495119. --- Respondent(s) WITH WPS No. 503 of 2022 1 - Umesh Kumar S/o Thabeer, Aged About 30 Years R/o Chhicchour, Umariya, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - Director, Directorate, Education Department, Indrawati Bhawan Nava Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 3 - District Education Officer, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. 4 - Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal S/o Mulchand Jaiswal R/o Nimdha, Post Nimdha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 495119. --- Respondent(s) WITH WPS No. 4019 of 2022 1 - Neha Sahu D/o Omprakash Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o House No. 87, Ward No. 6, Mokhla, Bharregaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Director Directorate, Education Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Naya Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) 3 - District Education Officer Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 4 - Jitendra Kumar Jaiswal S/o Mulchand Jaiswal, R/o Nimdha, Post Nimdha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 495119 --- Respondent(s) WITH 4 WPS No. 2451 of 2022 1 - Mukesh Kumar Netam S/o Bajju Ram Netam Aged About 33 Years R/o Tumasnar, Aamabeda, District Kanker (Chhattisgarh) ---Petitioner(s) Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Education Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 2 - Director, Directorate, Education Department, Indrawati Bhawan, Nava Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) 3 - Divisional Joint Director, Bastar, District Bastar (Chhattisgarh) --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, G.A. Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board 15.5.2026 1) The facts of the cases at hand are that an advertisement was issued by Directorate of Public Instructions on 9.3.2019 for appointment against various vacant posts of Lecturer, Teacher and Assistant Teacher of various disciplines in ‘E’ and ‘T’ cadres. Petitioners who belong to Other Backward Classes (OBC) category submitted their applications for appointment to the posts of Lecturer (Biology), Teacher (Maths) and Assistant Teacher (Science) in ‘E’ and ‘T’ cadres ; they participated in the examination and found place in merit. The selection committee issued provisional merit list wherein more than 7% seats have been allotted to physically handicapped candidates in the OBC category which has affected the rights of the petitioners. 5 Particulars of posts advertised under OBC category and physically handicapped candidates appointed against those posts are as under :- Designation Advertised posts under OBC category Physically handicapped candidates selected against OBC category Open Female Lecturer (Biology) (E-Cadre) 20 8 6 Lecturer (Biology) (T-cadre) 34 14 9 Teacher (Math) (E-Cadre) 14 5 7 Teacher (Biology) 15 6 4 Assistant Teacher (Science) (E-cadre) 23 9 12 2) Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that total 200 posts of Lecturer (Biology) in E-cadre were advertised and 7% posts i.e. 14 posts were reserved for physically handicapped candidates but the selection committee offered appointment to six physically handicapped persons in OBC category on the basis of their respective positions in the merit list which is higher than 7% and similar analogy has been applied by the respondent authorities with regard to appointment to the posts of Lecturer (Biology) (T-cadre), Teacher (Math) and Assistant Teacher (Science). He further submits that petitioners are meritorious to the handicapped candidates selected against the posts reserved for OBC category and in the reply, State has 6 admitted that physically handicapped candidates were considered for appointment on the basis of their position in merit list. He contends that procedure followed by the selection committee is in contravention to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Indra Sawhney and Others Versus Union of India and Others1 and the physically handicapped candidates should be placed in their respective categories. He further contends that a direction may be issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of petitioners and redraw the merit list strictly in accordance with the Indra Sawhney (supra) judgment. 3) On the other hand, Mr. Keshav Prasad Gupta, learned State counsel submits that the selected candidates who belong to physically handicapped (PH) category secured position in the merit list therefore their names were considered for appointment irrespective of their category according to the circular dated 29.8.2018. 4) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection. 5) State Government has extended the reservation to the physically handicapped persons vide circular dated 27.9.2014 (Annexure R/1) which specifically states that such reservation should be horizontal and compartment wise. Subsequently, another circular 1. 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 7 was issued on 29.8.2018 and its para 3(ii) states that reservation shall be horizontal. 6) In the advertisement dated 9.3.2019, total 200 posts of Lecturer (Biology) (E-cadre) were advertised wherein 28 posts were supposed to be filled by candidates belong to OBC category (vertical reservation) and 14 posts were supposed to be filled by physically handicapped persons (horizontal reservation) but respondent authorities offered appointment to six physically handicapped persons against the OBC category itself on the ground that they belong to OBC category and secured position in merit list. Similar analogy has been applied by the respondent authorities while making appointments to the posts of Lecturer (Biology) (T-cadre), Teacher (Math) and Assistant Teacher (Science). 7) In my opinion, the procedure adopted by the respondent authorities appears to be erroneous as such practice does not provide equal opportunity to the aspirants of all categories. Respondent authorities ought to have granted reservation horizontal as well as vertical in order to provide equal opportunity to the physically handicapped candidates belonging to all categories. 8) In the matter of Indra Sawhney (supra), Hon’ble Supreme Court while discussing horizontal and vertical reservation held as under :- 8 "812. Horizontal reservations cut across the vertical reservations what is called interlocking reservations. To be more precise, suppose 3% of the vacancies are reserved in favour of physically handicapped persons; this would be a reservation relatable to clause (1) of Article 16. The persons selected against this quota will be placed in the appropriate category; if he belongs to SC category he will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments; similarly, if he belongs to open competition (OC) category, he will be placed in that category by making necessary adjustments. Even after providing for these horizontal reservations, the percentage of reservations in favour of backward class of citizens remains - and should remain-the same. This is how these reservations are worked out in several States and there is no reason not to continue that procedure." This rule was affirmed and applied in Rajesh Kumar Daria Versus Rajasthan Public Service Commission2 and the manner of filling the horizontal reservation category and the vertical, social categories was explained in following terms :- “9. 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 the 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 the reservation quota for SCs has been filled. The entire reservation quota will be intact and available in 2. (2007) 8 SCC 785 9 addition to those selected under open competition category. [Vide Indra Sawhney15, R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab19, Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan 20 and Ritesh R. Sah v. Y.L. Yamul21] 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 Castes-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 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.” 9) In view of the aforesaid discussion and legal principles established by the Apex Court, in my opinion, respondent authorities, particularly the selection committee committed error of law while offering appointment to more than 7% physically disabled candidates against the posts reserved for OBC category by virtue of their respective merits alone. 10) Pertinently, by virtue the interim order(s) passed by the Hon’ble Court, respondent authorities have been directed to keep the corresponding posts vacant in all these petitions. Accordingly, these petitions are disposed directing respondent authorities to consider the names of petitioners for appointment to the 10 respective posts in light of the observations made by this Court herein-above. It is expected that the respondent authorities shall complete the entire exercise within period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE A j i n k y a Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2026.05.20 14:14:54 +0530