← All recent judgments
Supreme Court of India7 April 20262026 INSC 330

West Bengal SETCL v. Dipendu Biswas

Bench of 2 · Justice Sanjay Karol, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh

Why it matters

Listen

Employers and candidates in any recruitment involving UR (PWD) horizontal vacancies must note that a reserved-category PWD candidate who scores higher than an unreserved PWD candidate is entitled to the UR (PWD) post by migration on merit — a notification clause conditioning the vacancy on "non-availability" of a qualified unreserved candidate cannot be read to exclude more meritorious reserved-category PWD candidates; advocates challenging or defending such appointments should cite this judgment alongside Saurav Yadav v. State of UP and Deepa E.V. v. Union of India.

Summary

West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Co. Ltd. issued a recruitment notification for 30 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) Grade II, including one post reserved for UR (PWD-LV) — an unreserved post carrying a horizontal reservation for Persons with Disabilities (Low Vision). The notification stipulated that if no qualified UR (PWD-LV) candidate was available, the vacancy would be filled by PWD candidates of other categories as per merit. Respondent No. 1 (an unreserved PWD-LV candidate) scored 55.667 marks; Respondent No. 3 (an OBC-A candidate who also belonged to the PWD-LV category) scored 66.667 marks. The appellant-employer offered appointment to Respondent No. 3 on merit. Respondent No. 1 challenged this before the Calcutta High Court. The Single Bench dismissed the writ petition; the Division Bench reversed, holding that so long as a qualified unreserved PWD-LV candidate was available, no reserved-category PWD-LV candidate could be appointed to the UR (PWD-LV) post.

The Supreme Court set aside the Division Bench's order and restored the Single Bench's decision. The Court held that the "Unreserved" category is not a communal or social category — it is an open pool available to all candidates irrespective of social categorisation. When a horizontal (special) reservation for PWD-LV is carved out within the Unreserved category, the post remains open to every PWD-LV candidate from any vertical social category (SC, ST, OBC or unreserved), and the sole criterion for appointment is merit. The principle of migration/mobility — well-settled since Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and restated in Saurav Yadav v. State of UP — applies equally to horizontal reservations under the Unreserved category. A less meritorious unreserved PWD-LV candidate cannot be preferred over a more meritorious OBC-A PWD-LV candidate; to hold otherwise would be patently arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16.

The Court further clarified that the notification's condition ("in case of non-availability of qualified UR (PWD-LV) candidate…") merely states the obvious — it does not erect an absolute bar against meritorious reserved-category PWD-LV candidates when an unreserved PWD-LV candidate is present. The Court also noted, following Deepa E.V. v. Union of India and Union of India v. Sajib Roy, that a reserved candidate migrating to an unreserved post must not have availed any relaxation in essential qualifications — a condition satisfied on the facts, as Respondent No. 3 had availed no such relaxation.

Key principle

A horizontally reserved post for PWD-LV falling under the Unreserved category is open to all PWD-LV candidates irrespective of their vertical social category, and must be filled purely on merit; a less meritorious unreserved PWD-LV candidate cannot be preferred over a more meritorious reserved-category PWD-LV candidate, as the principle of migration/mobility applies equally to horizontal reservations within the Unreserved category.

Holding

Allowed — the Division Bench erred in holding that the presence of a qualified unreserved PWD-LV candidate creates an absolute bar against more meritorious reserved-category PWD-LV candidates; an Unreserved post is open to all on merit, and the principle of migration applies to horizontal reservations within the Unreserved category.

Statutes invoked

  • Constitution · Article 14
  • Constitution · Article 16
  • Constitution · Article 16(4)

Practice areas

serviceconstitutional
AI-generated summary, written by Claude Sonnet 4.6 from the court's published judgment. Always verify the original before relying on the summary in court. Generated on 21 May 2026.