TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) whether the writ petition challenging the selection could be entertained without impleading the selected candidates who were likely to be affected by the relief sought; (ii) whether women selected on their own merit could be counted against the horizontal reservation quota for Uttaranchal women.
Issue (i): whether the writ petition challenging the selection could be entertained without impleading the selected candidates who were likely to be affected by the relief sought.
Analysis: A challenge to a selection process that seeks displacement of a selected candidate requires impleadment of those selected candidates whose rights would be directly affected. The principles underlying the rule against nonjoinder of necessary parties apply in writ proceedings as well, and a person likely to suffer from an adverse order should ordinarily be before the court. Here, the candidate who would have been displaced was not impleaded.
Conclusion: The writ petition was not maintainable in the absence of a necessary party, and the High Court ought not to have granted relief on that basis.
Issue (ii): whether women selected on their own merit could be counted against the horizontal reservation quota for Uttaranchal women.
Analysis: Horizontal reservation operates differently from vertical reservation. In the case of special reservation for women, candidates selected on their own merit in the open category are counted in the general pool and not reduced from the special reservation quota. The High Court's approach of treating a merit-selected woman candidate as occupying a horizontal reservation slot was contrary to the settled method of applying special reservation.
Conclusion: Women selected on their own merit could not be adjusted against the horizontal reservation quota, and the High Court's contrary view was erroneous.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the High Court's judgment was set aside, leaving the selection challenge unsuccessful.
Ratio Decidendi: A selection challenge that seeks to alter appointments must implead the affected selected candidates, and horizontal reservation cannot reduce the open-category quota by counting candidates who secured selection on their own merit.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
