MAHESH GUPTA AND ORS. versus YASHWANT KUMAR AHIRWAR AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 578 · Decided: 30-08-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MAHESH GUPTA AND ORS. 
v. 
YASHWANT KUMAR AHIRWAR AND ORS. 
AUGUST 30, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.]. 
Service Law: 
Reservation-Post of Assistant teacher-8 posts for Scheduled Castes 
C and 3 for handicapped persons-Appellants, handicapped persons belonging 
to general category, selected-Respondent belonging to reserved category 
and. also handicapped, not selected-Respondent challenged selection of 
appellants-Selection of appellants set aside-On appeal, Held; Handicapped 
persons form a special class-Hence, further reservation based on caste, 
D creed or religion could not be made-Appellants were selected against posts 
vacant under handicapped quota-Hence, their selection was wrongly set 
aside-Executive action must be fair and reasonable-Constitution of India, 
1950-Articles 14, 16 and 39-Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, 
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995-Administrative law-
Executive action-Social justice. 
E 
The State of Madhya Pradesh issued a circular letter on 29.3.1993 
which stated that the quota fixed for the blinds and other physically handicapped 
persons is not being fulfilled due to absence of knowledge about reservation 
and procedural complications and extending of the full benefit against the 
F reserved posts in the government services as per the prescribed quota, for 
the handicapped persons could not be determined as a fair situation. 
Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said circular letter, the 
Commissioner issued an advertisement dated 26.5.1994. Appellants belonging 
to the general category and also handicapped persons were selected. 
G Respondent No. 1, a handicapped person but also belonging to the reserved 
category candidate was not selected. He approached the Administrative 
Tribunal. The Administrative Tribunal opined that he had no right of 
appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher (Science) having not been 
selected by the Selection Committee stating that the heading of the 
advertisement dated 26.5.1994 is misleading that applications are also invited 
H 
578 
---h-
MAHESHGUPTA v. YASHWANTKUMARAHIRWAR 
579 
from the candidates ~elonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes A 
but in the body of the advertisement, 8 posts were reserved for the candidates 
belonging to the Scheduled Castes and 3 posts for handicapped persons 
without having any caste wise reservation. 
On a writ petition, High Court set aside the order of Tribunal. High 
Court held that State Government is required to examine minutely and decide B 
whether the posts could be filled from the general category when advertisement 
was for reserved category mentioned in the advertisement and whether these 
posts are to be filled from the members of scheduled tribes only or from the 
members of scheduled castes only or from the category of other backward 
castes or these posts were for all the categories and whether the r~servation C 
was in accordance with the reserved proportion. State would also examine 
• whether at the relevant date any post of the handicapped candidate in general 
category was vacant If no post was vacant then no person from general category 
could be appointed against these posts. 
Even after the direction of the High Court, State was of the view that D 
the Advertisement dated 26.5.1994 regarding special drive for recruitment 
of Scheduled Casterfribes and filling of the posts of handicapped persons, 
was issued in compliance of the instructions issued from time to time by the 
General Administration Department and the Circular Dated 29th of March, 
1993, but in the language of the heading of the Advertisement, the words "and 
handicapped" should have been used along with Scheduled Caste/fribes, which E 
has not been done so and the selection procedure is without any fault and 
guiltless. 
A contempt petition was filed at a later stage. In the contempt 
proceedings, the State took the stand that the advertisement was not proper F 
and selection made against the quota for handicapped persons is liable to be 
cancelled. In terms of the said decision, the services of appellan~s were 
terminated. Appellants filed special leave to appeal against both the orders of 
High Court. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I.I. The State in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India 
may make two types of reservations - vertical and horizontal. Article 16(4) 
provides for vertical reservation; whereas Clause (1) of Article 16 provide
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.