I am of opinion, views expressed by Rajasthan High Court, Gujarat High Court, Bombay High Court and Uttarakhand High Court, termed as ‘first view’, is correct and not views expressed by Allahabad and Madhya Pradesh, called as ‘second view’. [Hon’ble Justice S. Ravindra Bhat]

Finally, we must say, steps indicated by High Court of Gujarat in Paragraph 56 of Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai, R/LPA No. 1910 of 2019 in R/Special Civil Application No. 18968 of 2018 contemplate correct and appropriate procedure for considering and giving effect to both vertical and horizontal reservation. [Hon’ble Justice U.U. Lalit]

– Saurav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, [Miscellaneous Application No. 2641 of 2019].

_____

Observations in Saurav Yadav were premised on, there was no rule or direction which prohibited adjustment of ‘socially reserved categories’ of women in ‘general category’ or ‘open category’.

One additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions. To dispose cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper [Haryana Financial Corporation v. Jagdamba Oil Mills, (2002) 3 SCC 496].
 
– Hon’ble Justice Joymalya Bagchi, Union of India v. Sajib Roy, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 21392-21393 of 2019] decided on 09.09.2025.

_____

Also see, BSNL v. Sandeep Choudhary, [Civil Appeal No. 8717 of 2015] decided 28.04.2022.

_____

3-Judge Bench of this Court in Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P., (2021) 4 SCC 542 observed, reservations, both vertical and horizontal, are methods of ensuring representation in public services and these are not to be seen as rigid ‘slots’. An ‘open category’ is open to all and only condition for a candidate to be shown in it is merit, regardless of whether reservation benefit of either type was available to him or her. 

– Hon’ble Justice Sanjay Kumar, Deependra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5817 of 2023] decided on 01.05.2024. 

_____

Court in Saurav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 4 SCC 542 approved Paragraph 69 in Tamannaben Ashokbhai Desai, 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 2592. Also see, Sadhana Singh Dangi v. Pinki Asati, (2022) 12 SCC 401 and S. Krishna Sradha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2020) 17 SCC 465.

– Hon’ble Justice B.R. Gavai, Ramnaresh v. State of Madhya Pradesh, [Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 2111 of 2024] decided on 20.08.2024.

_____

High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur had issued an advertisement for recruitment of 120 posts of Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate under Civil Judge Cadre.

There is no provision framed by State of Rajasthan which could be said to have been violated by not fixing cut-off marks for ‘persons with benchmark disabilities’. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, (1992) Supp. 3 SCC 217 aptly explains concept of vertical reservations and horizontal reservations. Undisputedly, and there remains no doubt, reservation for ‘persons with disabilities’ has been treated as horizontal reservation [Article 16(1)] and not vertical reservation [Article 16(4)]. Those ‘persons with benchmark disabilities’, for being adjusted in a category for which he or she had applied, had to secure minimum cut-off marks fixed for such category under which he or she had applied. Such fixation of cut-off marks for other categories and non-fixation of cut-off marks for ‘persons with benchmark disabilities’ could neither be said to be arbitrary nor violative of any fundamental right.

– Hon’ble Justice Bela M. Trivedi, Rekha Sharma v. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, [Civil Appeal No. 5051 of 2023] decided on 21.08.2024.