Distinction between social vertical reservation and social horizontal reservation and manner of distribution of horizontal reservation posts pointed out

Distinction between social vertical reservation and social horizontal reservation and manner of distribution of horizontal reservation posts pointed out

1. Since common question of law and fact is involved in the above four writ petitions, they are being disposed of by this common order.

2. In this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners herein have questioned legality, validity and correctness of the order dated 5-2-2015 by which their services from the post of Rural Medical Assistant (RMA) have been terminated by the Director, Health Services, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, and respondents No. 5 to 8 have been appointed in place of the petitioners on the post of Rural Medical Assistant.

3. The above-stated challenge has been made in the following factual matrix of the case incorporated herein-after: –

4. The Directorate of Health Services, Chhattisgarh issued an advertisement on 19-8-2013 for appointment on 741 posts of Rural Medical Assistant (for short ‘the RMA’). Total 104 posts were reserved for Other Backward Classes (OBC) out of which 31 posts were reserved for women on the basis of 30% horizontal and compartment-wise reservation. On 24- 9-2013, selection list was issued and present petitioners were appointed as RMAs under the OBC category. Three writ petitions were filed by the aggrieved women candidates being W.P.Nos. 3687/2013, 3688/2013 & 837/2014 stating inter alia that women quota particularly in OBC category i.e. quota of 30% as provided in the Rules has not been fulfilled while calculating the said quota. This Court by its orders dated 7-3-2014 & 14-2-2014 (Annexure P-9) directed the State Government and its authorities to decide the representation of the petitioners within a period of three months. The State Government after consideration, issued notices to the petitioners herein holding that sufficient and adequate number of women candidates have not been appointed against their quota as per rules to which one of the petitioners herein namely Dwarika Prasad Patel replied on 14-1-2015 (Annexure P-10) to the State Government. Thereafter, all the petitioners herein filed writ petitions before this Court and this Court directed the petitioners to file their reply to the show cause notice and the State Government was directed to take decision in accordance with law on its own merit. The petitioners’ representations were rejected by the State Government vide Annexure R-1 dated 8-4-2015 and in the meanwhile, by order dated 5-2- 2015, the petitioners’ services were terminated by respondent No. 2 and respondents No. 5 to 8 were appointed on the said post in place of the petitioners.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.