Bombay High Court: In writ petitions challenging the recruitment process for Police Constable posts, the Division Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar, CJ., and Anil S. Kilor, J., examined whether vacancies in Vimukta Jatis [VJ(A)] and Nomadic Tribes [NT(D)] categories left unfilled due to non-availability of suitable candidates should be filled by preparing a common merit list of (NT) (B) and NT(C) candidates or by distributing them proportionately according to reservation percentages. The Court held that proportional distribution was the correct method under Section 4(3), Maharashtra State Public Services Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, De-Notified Tribes (Vimukta Jatis), Nomadic Tribes, Special Backward Category and other Backward Classes Act, 2001 (Act of 2001), and dismissed the petitions.
Background
This case arose from the recruitment process for Police Constable posts in Gadchiroli district, where out of 207 seats reserved for VJNT categories, 49 remained vacant i.e. 9 from VJ(A) and 40 from NT(D). The Home Department recommended filling these vacancies proportionately according to reservation percentages of NT(B) and NT(C).
The petitioners argued that vacancies should be filled by preparing a common merit list of NT(B) and NT(C) candidates, thereby ensuring merit-based selection. They contended that Section 4(3) permits filling vacancies by “suitable candidates from any of the said categories,” which rules out proportional distribution.
The State submitted that the recruitment process was conducted strictly in accordance with rules and policy, and that proportional distribution was consistent with Section 4(3). It was argued that petitioners had no vested right to appointment merely on the basis of higher marks.
Analysis
The Court emphasised that though in the advertisement no methodology was given to fill up such vacant posts, in case of any vacancy among any of the categories mentioned in the present case, where no suitable candidate is found, inter-transferability is permissible and the posts shall be filled by appointing suitable candidates from any of the mentioned categories.
The Court observed that the VJNT category is divided into four sub-categories viz. VJ(A), NT(B), NT(C) and NT(D) for vertical reservation, and further noted that for all the four sub-categories of VJNT, equal reservation is not prescribed but different percentages of reservation are prescribed. The Court highlighted that it is evident that upon bifurcation of the VJNT category into four separate categories, the allocation of reservation percentages was not maintained equally or uniformly, rather, distinct percentages have been assigned and prescribed for each of such categories. Thus, this, ex facie, without any element of doubt, indicates that the four categories were not intended to be treated at par in terms of reservation.
The Court emphasised that where a vacancy arises in any one or more of the said categories, and the same is sought to be filled through inter-transferability among these categories, the original intent of maintaining differential reservation percentages is not obliterated. On the contrary, such differential allocation continues to operate. Consequently, any vacancy so transferred and filled must adhere to the reservation percentage applicable to the category to which the vacancy is ultimately allocated, even while adopting the method of inter-transferability.
The Court further observed that as regards horizontal reservation, the law herein is no more res integra. The Court referred to Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (1995) 5 SCC 173 wherein it was held that if the quota fixed for horizontal reservations is already satisfied, in case it is an overall horizontal reservation, no further question arises. But if it is not so satisfied, the requisite number of special reservation candidates shall have to be taken and adjusted/accommodated against their respective social reservation categories by deleting the corresponding number of candidates therefrom.
The Court further highlighted that if a suitable candidate corresponding to the horizontal reservation is not available, then the vacant post has to be filled by another candidate from the same vertical reservation as per merit.
Decision
The Court held that the Tribunal was correct in directing that vacancies in VJ(A) and NT(D) categories be filled in proportion to reservation percentages of NT(B) and NT(C), and that horizontal reservation be recalculated within NT(B) and NT(C). The Court therefore dismissed petitions with a modification that authorities must verify whether horizontal quotas are already satisfied within NT(B) and NT(C) and if not, adjustments must be made accordingly.
The Court thereby upheld the Tribunal’s order, making the rule absolute with no order as to costs.
[Nikhil Ashok Dumane v. Police Recruitment Board, Writ Petition No. 5999 of 2025, decided on 30-4-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Justice Anil S. Kilor
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioners: F.T.Mirza, Sr. Adv. a/b Nihalsingh Rathod, Advocate
For the Respondent: J.Y. Ghurde, A.G.P, R.N.Ghuge, Advocate, M.R.Khan, Advocate