Chattisgarh High Court
Mukesh Kumar Netam vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 May, 2026
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 Physically
under OBC handicapped
category candidates
Open Female selected
against OBC
category
Lecturer (Biology) 20 8 6
(E-Cadre)
Lecturer (Biology) 34 14 9
(T-cadre)
Teacher (Math) 14 5 7
(E-Cadre)
Teacher (Biology) 15 6 4Assistant Teacher 23 9 12
(Science) (E-cadre)
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
6admitted 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
Ajinkya
Digitally signed
by AJINKYA
PANSARE
Date: 2026.05.20
14:14:54 +0530
