Manjusha D/O Sainath Sadulwar and Anr. vs the State of Maha. Thr. Its Principal Sec. Dept. of Home Affairs and Ors.

¶1

Judgment

¶2

WP5999-2025+2.odt

¶3

1

¶4

2026:BHC-NAG:6798-DB

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO. 5999 OF 2025 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6063 OF 2025 WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 6762 OF 2025

¶7

W.P.NO.5999/2025

¶8

Nikhil Ashok Dumane, Age 25 year, occu:- unemployed R/o. at. Waghalabardi, Ta. Armori, Dist. Gadchiroli Maharashtra 441208

¶9

Vikas Vitthal Mandare, Age 28 year, occu:- unemployed R/o at post Jairampur, Chamo Dist. Gadchiroli, Maharashtra 441208

¶10

Rajkumar Pocham Ganta, Age 25 year, occu:- unemployed R/o at. Nagaram, nagaram, Gadchiroli, Maharashtra 442504

¶11

Mayur Nanaji Shende, Age 23 year, occu:- unemployed R/o at. Vihirgaon, Post: Gurwal, Vihirgaonmokasa, Gadchiroli, Maharashtra 442605

¶12

Lokesh Gajanan Battiwar, Age 25 year, Occu:- Unemployed R/o at. Dharmrao School Yenkapalli, At: Yenkapalli Post: Alapalli Ta. Aheri, Yenkapalli, Gadchiroli, Maharashtra-442703

¶13

Khushal Diwakar Bandawar, Age 28 year, occu:- unemployed R/o at. Bamhanidev, Ta. Chamorshi, Bamhanidev, Jairampur, Gadchiroli Maharashtra-442707.

Judgment

WP5999-2025+2.odt

2

Rupesh Sudhkar Buranwar, Age 25 year, occu: unemployed R/o at. Mudholi, Chak,n. 2, Mudholichak No.1, Gadchiroli, Maharashtra-442707

¶18

Praful Bapu Alamwar, Age 25 year, occu:- unemployed R/o. at post Rajaram, Ta. Aheri, Rajaram, Gadchiroli, Maharashtra 442709

¶19

Akshay Prabhakar Marbhate, Age 30 year, occu: unemployed R/o at. Vitthal Mandir, Ward no.1, At. Post. Tah, Armori, Armori, Gadchiroli, Maharashtra 441208

¶20

10.Komal Krushna Kumare, Aged 25 years, occu: unemployed R/o village Katezari, Post: Chatgaon Tq.Dhanora, District Gadchiroli

¶21

11.Vaibhav Naktu Gedam, aged 22 years, occu: unemployed, R/o Village Shivani, Yewli, Tq and Dist Gadchiroli

¶22

12.Pranjay Digambar Bodawar, Aged 26 Years, occu: unemployed R/o Yenapur Chamorshi, Gadchiroli, Maharashtra 442707

¶23

13.Diwakar Anandrao Mekatiwar, Aged 31 Years, Occu: Unemployed R/o At Somanpalli, Post: Konsari Tahsil : Chamorshi Dist: Gadchiroli Maharashtra 442707

Judgment

WP5999-2025+2.odt

3

14.Ramesh Gajanan Shende, Aged 31 years, Occu: unemployed R/o Chandrapur Road, Murkhada, Post: Mudza, Ta. Dist Gadchiroli Murkhada Gadchiroli 442605

¶28

15.Parag Shankar Nilam, Aged 26 years, occu: unemployed R/o Tahsil Aheri, VTC Aheri, Sub-dist Aheri Dist.: Gadchiroli Maharashtra-442705

¶29

Vijay Shankar Gajulwar, Aged 31years, Occu: service R/o At Post: Somanpalli, Tah:Chamorshi Gadchiroli, Maharashtra-442707

¶30

// VERSUS //

¶31

Police Recruitment Board Gadchiroli Through its Chairman Being Superintendent of Police, Gachiroli, Having His Office at SP Office, Gadchiroli, Maharashtra

¶32

State Of Maharashtra, Through its Additional Chief Secretary For Home Department, Having Office At Mantralaya Mumbai, Maharashtra

¶33

State of Maharashtra, Through its Chief Secretary For General Administration Department, Having His Office At Mantralaya Mumbai

¶34

Additional Director General of Police, Training and Special Squads, having his office at Police Headquarters, Shahid Bhagat Singh Marg, Kulaba, Mumbai, Maharashtra 400001

Judgment

WP5999-2025+2.odt

4

Sumit Ishwar Kankalwar

¶39

Chetan Naktu Tunkalwar

¶40

Pratik Gajanan Gartulwar

¶41

Sunil Ishwar Chatur

¶42

Ankit Shivram Odengwar 10. Aditya Shantaram Kannamwar 11. Chandrakant Namdeo Yerewar 12. Gaurav Maroti Koriwar 13. Kartik Dilip Arewar 14. Akash Shamrao Kalewar 15. Prajwal Pochuram Bandawar 16. Swapnil Girma Rajurkar 17. Mukhru Charandas Barlawar 18. Chatrapati Maroti Kankalwar 19. Ritik Devrao Madawar 20. Maroti Dopaji Macchawar 21. Suraj Pandurang Madhamwar 22. Nikhil Ashok Dundalwar 23. Akash Shambhu Konchalwar 24. Khemraj Shalik Madhamwar

Judgment

WP5999-2025+2.odt

5

Roshan Bira Kankalwar

¶47

Umesh Mallaji Karewar

¶48

Suraj Vishwanath Choudhari

¶49

Pramod Yadav Sodirwar

¶50

Prafull Dashrath Chittalwar

¶51

Shubham Wasudeo Shirgewar

¶52

Subhash Kashinath Shettiwar

¶53

Nitesh Diwakar Barlawar

¶54

Parshuram Ishwar Tunkulwar Respondents No. 5 to 33, Through Superintendent of Police Gadchiroli, Maharashtra.

¶55

…. RESPONDENTS.

¶56

Shri F.T.Mirza, Sr. Adv. a/b Shri Nihalsingh Rathod, Advocate for______________________________________________________________ Petitioners.

¶57

Shri J.Y. Ghurde, A.G.P. for Respondent/ State.

¶58

Shri R.N.Ghuge, Advocate for Respondent Nos.5, 6, 7, 16, 21, 30 to 33.

¶59

Shri M.R.Khan, Advocate for Respondent Nos. 8 to 15, 17 to 20, 22 to 29, 31.

¶60

WITH

¶61

W.P. NO. 6063/2025.

¶62

Shruti D/o. Madhao Nanhe Aged about 25 years, Occu : Nil, R/o. Ward No.22, Gokul Nagar, Chamorshi Road, Dist. Gadchiroli.

¶63

Rupali D/o. Atul Meshram, Aged about 27 years, Occu : Nil, R/o. Chapalwada, Tq. Chamorshi, Dist. Gadchiroli.

Judgment

WP5999-2025+2.odt

6

Revati D/o. Pradeep Peshattiwar, Aged about 20 years, Occu : Nil, R/o. Telang Mohala, Ward No.2, Tq. Chamorshi, Dist. Gadchiroli.

¶68

Nutan D/o. Dewaji Kasture, Aged about 25 years, Occu : Nil, R/o. At Post : Ashti, Tq. Chamorshi, Dist. Gadchiroli.

¶69

Nikita D/o. Pocham Dontulwar, Aged about 24 years, Occu : Nil, R/o.At. Suddhagudam, Post Marpalli, Tq. Aheri, Dist. Gadchiroli.

¶70

…. PETITIONERS.

¶71

// VERSUS //

¶72

State of Maharashtra, through its Secretary, Home Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai -32.

¶73

Additional Director General of Police, Training & Special Unit Maharashtra State, Mumbai.

¶74

Superintendent of Police, Gadchiroli, Dist. Gadchiroli.

¶75

…. RESPONDENTS.

¶76

Shri Purushottam B. Patil, Advocate for Petitioners. ______________________________________________________________ Shri J.Y. Ghurde, A.G.P. for Respondent/ State. Shri Pavan P. Sarise, Advocate for Interveners.

Judgment

WP5999-2025+2.odt

7

WITH

¶81

W.P. NO. 6762/2025.

¶82

1. Manjusha D/o. Sainath Sadulwar Aged about 21 years, Occu : Nil, R/o. Telang Mohalla, Post Chamorshi, Gadchiroli, Maharashtra.

¶83

1. Kanchan D/o. Subhash Gedam, Aged about 24 years, Occu.: Nil, R/o. Kadamgaon, Chamorshi, Gadchiroli, Maharashtra. …. PETITIONERS.

¶84

// VERSUS //

¶85

1. The State of Maharashtra, Through its Principal Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Mantralaya, Mumbai.

¶86

The Superintendent of Police, Gadchiroli, SP Office, Gadchiroli, Tah. & Dist. Gadchiroli.

¶87

Vrushali D/o Jankiram Bahirewar, Aged About 26 years, Occu: Nil, R/o Ward No.1, Kishtapura Tola, Kishtapur Chittaranjpur, Chamorshi, Gadchiroli, Maharashtra.

¶88

Kalyani D/o Jagannath Kasanwar, Aged About 26 years, Occu: Nil, R/o at Post Bodali, Gadchiroli, Maharashtra.

¶89

Mayuri D/o Gurudas Bhoyar, Aged About 25 years, Occu: Nil, R/o Post Wagholi, Tahsil Chamorshi, Gadchiroli, Maharashtra.

…. RESPONDENTS.

Judgment

WP5999-2025+2.odt

8

Shri Tejas Deshpande, Advocate for Petitioners. ______________________________________________________________ Shri J.Y. Ghurde, A.G.P. for Respondent/ State. Shri P.A. Lohambare, Advocate for Interveners.

¶95

CORAM : SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR,CJ. & ANIL S. KILOR, J.

¶96

DATE OF RESERVING THE JUDGMENT : 20/04/2026. DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE JUDGMENT: 30/04/2026.

¶97

JUDGMENT

¶98

Per, Anil S. Kilor, J.

¶99

Heard.

¶100

RULE . Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

¶101

All these three petitions are arising out of a common judgment dated 25/09/2025, passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Nagpur in Original Application Nos.924 of 2024, 251 of 2025, 390 of 2025, 792 of 2025 and 849 of 2025, partly allowing the aforementioned Original Applications, directing the respondents to fill 49 posts which fell vacant at the end of the selection process from the category VJ NT (A) and VJ NT (D) by the candidates from the category VJ NT (B) and

Judgment

WP5999-2025+2.odt

9

VJ NT(C) in the proportion of the reservation percentage prescribed for the respective categories namely NT(B) and NT(C) and further directing to recalculate the seats (quota) of the above two categories for the purpose of horizontal reservation.

¶106

Brief facts of the present case are as under :

¶107

The petitioners herein are the aspirants of public service and in response to the notice of recruitment issued by the respondent/ State for recruitment to the post of Police Constable in Gadchiroli district, they applied either in the category of NT(B) or NT(C) as they belong to the respective category. As per the advertisement under the reserved category VJ NT 54 seats for VJ(A) category, 56 for NT(B) category, 57 posts for NT(C) category and 46 seats for NT(D) category, were reserved.

¶108

The petitioners appeared for Written Test as well as for Physical Test held by the respondent Police Recruitment Board. At the end of the selection process following was the position of the vacant seats :

Judgment

WP5999-2025+2.odt

10

TABLE-1

Sr.No .	Category	Seats Reserved	Seats filled	Vacant
A.	VJ (A)	54	45	9
B.	NT(B)	50	50	0
C.	NT(C)	57	57	0
D.	NT(D)	46	06	40
	Total	207	158	49

¶114

Thus, there were total 49 seats remained vacant, out of which 9 from VJ(A) category and 40 from NT(D) category.

¶115

Section 4(3) of the 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 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2001”), permits inter-transferability if suitable candidates for the posts reserved for any of the said categories are not available.

¶116

Thus, a dispute arose regarding the methodology to be adopted for filling the vacancies in the VJ(A) and NT(D) categories, which remained unfilled due to the nonavailability of suitable candidates.

Judgment

WP5999-2025+2.odt

11

Consequently, the matter was referred to the Home Department of the Government of Maharashtra. The Home Department, in reply, vide communication dated 17/12/2024, recommended to transfer the vacant posts in the same proportion as of the reservation percentage for NT(B) and NT(C) categories i.e. 2.5% and 3.5%, respectively.

¶121

Contrary to the said recommendation, the petitioners demanded to fill the posts by common merit list of NT(B) and NT(C) categories on the basis of the merit only by preparing common merit list. It is further sought to transfer the vacant seats of VJ(A) and NT(D) categories meant for horizontal reservation to NT(B) and NT(C) categories and fill the same by horizontal reservation.

¶122

In the above referred backdrop on being unsuccessful before the Tribunal, now a challenge is raised to the impugned common judgment, dated 25/09/2025, passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal for upholding the transfer of the vacant posts in the proportion of reservation percentage for NT(B) and

Judgment

WP5999-2025+2.odt

12

NT(C) categories i.e. 2.5% and 3.5%, respectively, and for not transferring the vacant seats meant for horizontal reservation to NT(B) and NT(C) categories for filling the same.

¶127

Hence, these petitions.

¶128

Petitioner Nos. 1 to 9 in Writ Petition No.5999 of 2025 are the applicants in Original Application No.390 of 2025 with Manohar Samiah Gandrakota and Raju Vyenkanna Mittawar. However, the Petitioner Nos.10 to 16 were not party to any of the Original Applications. The prayer before the Tribunal in the aforementioned Original Application was to hold and declare that the applicants are entitled for appointment on the post of Police Constable being more meritorious. The consequential prayer was to hold them to be entitled for seniority, increments, salary etc. In addition, a prayer was for quashing and setting aside the advice dated 17/12/2024, and the appointments given to the respondent Nos. 4 to 32 in the said Original Application.

¶129

In Writ Petition No. 6063 of 2025, the petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 are the applicants in Original Application

Judgment

WP5999-2025+2.odt

13

No.792 of 2025 with one Dipika Nandu Matthan. The petitioner Nos. 4 and 5 were the applicant Nos. 3 and 5 in Original Application No.849 of 2025 with one Nilam Manohar Dighore, Reyati Pradeep Peshattiwar and Ankita Ashok Gadde.

¶134

The prayers in Original Application No. 792 of 2025 and 849 of 2025 were to consider their claim against 22 left out vacancies of women under VJ (A) and NT(D) category and fill up the said posts without applying the bifurcation on the basis of the reservation percentage applicable to NT(B) and NT(C) category while filling the aforementioned vacancies.

¶135

In Writ Petition No. 6762 of 2025 the petitioners were applicant Nos. 4 and 5 in Original Application No. 251 of 2025 with Vrushali Jankiram Bahirewar, Kalyani Jagannath Kasanwar and Mayuri Gurudas Bhoyar, and the prayers are similar as stated in aforementioned para 11. 16. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties.

¶136

Mr Mirza, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, submits that as per section 4(2) & (3) of the

Judgment

WP5999-2025+2.odt

14

Act of 2001, the vacant posts should be filled only by suitable candidates. There is no legislative intent appearing from any of the provisions that said division in proportion to the reservation quotient was intended. The impugned action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, and contrary to the settled principles governing public employment.

¶141

Mr Mirza, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners, further submits that the Tribunal has ignored the use of phrase “any of the said category”. The use of the term “suitable candidate from any of the said categories” in itself rules out selecting candidates by applying in proportion of reservation percentage of the respective category.

¶142

Mr Mirza, learned Sr. Advocate for the petitioners, contends that the rigid application of compartmentalised reservation adopted by the respondents to allocate the seats defeats the very object of section 4(3) of the Act of 2001. Instead of this approach, the respondents were required to adopt a merit-based approach that considered eligible candidates across VJNT categories,

Judgment

WP5999-2025+2.odt

15

rather than mechanically restricting selection to compartmentalised categories. In support of his submissions, the learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. , reported in (1995) 5 SCC 173 , to contend that the process of selection must adhere to a structured and rational methodology.

¶147

It is also submitted that the appointments granted to Respondent Nos. 5 to 33 are illegal, inasmuch as they have been made without adhering to the principle of merit and in disregard of eligible candidates like petitioners.

¶148

Shri P.B.Patil, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP No.6063/2025 contended that the vacancies earmarked for women candidates if left unfilled in a particular sub-category the same ought to have been filled by women candidates from other categories. He, therefore, submits that since the seats earmarked for women candidates in the categories of VJ(A) and NT(D) fell vacant, it should be filled by transferring it to NT(B)

Judgment

WP5999-2025+2.odt

16

and NT(C) category, on merit.

¶153

Shri. Tejas Deshpande, learned counsel for the petitioners in WP No.6762 of 2025 has reiterated the aforementioned arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioners.

¶154

On the other hand, learned AGP appearing for the respondent/State submits that the recruitment process has been conducted strictly in accordance with the applicable rules, Government Resolutions, and the provisions of the Act of 2001. It is contended that the petitioners have no vested right to claim appointment merely on the basis of securing higher marks.

¶155

Further, the learned AGP contended that in view of Section 4(3) of the Act of 2001, the vacancies arising due to non-availability of candidates in certain VJNT categories were required to be filled from other VJNT categories. Accordingly, based on administrative guidance and applicable policy, the vacant posts were distributed proportionately, resulting in the allocation of posts to NT(B) and NT(C) categories.

¶156

Having considered the rival contentions and gone

Judgment

WP5999-2025+2.odt

17

through the record a question which falls for consideration is, whether in case of non-availability of the suitable candidate in any of the category/categories viz. VJ(A), NT(B), NT(C) and NT(D), the permissible intertransferability of seats among the said categories, should be filled by common merit list or it should be filled in the same proportion of the reservation percentage of the respective category?

¶161

Let us ponder upon it. It is evident from record that while issuing the advertisement dated 05/03/2024 for ‘Recruitment for Police Constable’, initially 742 vacancies were notified, which were subsequently raised to 912 vacancies by way of a corrigendum to the said advertisement.

¶162

It is to be noted that the seats reserved for VJ NT category were sub-divided into four categories, namely VJ(A), NT(B), NT(C), and NT(D). The following chart shows the reservation percentage for all the four categories: :

¶163

TABLE-2

¶164

Category	VJ-A	NT-B	NT-C	NT-D
Total	54	50	57	46
Compartmen- talized reservation.↓

¶165

Judgment

¶166

WP5999-2025+2.odt

¶167

General	15	18 16	15
Women	16	15 17	14
Sports	3	2 3	2
Project Affected	3	2 3	2
Earthquake Affected	1	1 1	1
Ex-Servicemen	8	7 9	7
Part-time Degree Holders	3	2 3	2
Police Wards	2	1 2	1
Home Guard	3	2 3	2
Orphan		1% out of total vacancies

¶168

At the end of the selection process, 49 seats

¶169

remained unfilled, out of which 9 seats from VJ(A) category and 40 seats from NT(D) category.

¶170

In the advertisement no methodology was given to fill up such vacant posts.

¶171

Section 4(3) of the Act of 2001, therefore, would

¶172

be relevant to refer to, which reads thus :

¶173

“ 4. Reservation and Percentage :

¶174

(1) & (2) …

¶175

(3) The reservation specified for the categories mentioned at serial numbers (3) to (6) (both inclusive) in the table under sub- section (2) shall be inter transferable. If suitable candidates for the posts reserved for any of the said categories are not available in the same recruitment year, the posts shall be filled by appointing suitable candidates from any of the other said categories.”

¶176

It is evident from the language of the above

¶177

referred provision that, in case of any vacancy among

Judgment

WP5999-2025+2.odt

19

any of the category mentioned herein above, for the reason that no suitable candidate is found, intertransferability is permissible and the posts shall be filled by appointing suitable candidates from any of the said categories.

¶182

Does Section 4(3) of the Act of 2001 suggest to fill up the vacant seats by preparing a common merit list or does it suggest that the seats shall be filled, in proportion of reservation percentage as prescribed for the respective category, is to be examined?

¶183

To answer this, it is important to note that the VJ NT category is divided in four sub-categories viz. VJ(A), NT(B), NT(C) and NT(D) for vertical reservation, as we have seen herein above in Table No.1. It is important to note that for all the aforementioned four sub-categories of VJ NT, equal reservation is not prescribed but different percentage of reservation is prescribed, which is as follows :

¶184

TABLE-3

¶185

Description of Caste/Tribe/	Percentage of
Category/Class	vacancies or seats
	to bereserved
(1)De-notified Tribes(A)	3percent.

Judgment

WP5999-2025+2.odt

20

(2)Nomadic Tribes(B)	2.5percent.
(3)Nomadic Tribes(C)	3.5percent.
(4)Nomadic Tribes(D)	2percent.

¶190

Thus, it is evident that upon bifurcation of the VJ NT category into four separate categories, the allocation of reservation percentages was not maintained equal or uniform; rather, distinct percentage has been assigned and prescribed for each of such category. This, ex facie , without element of any doubt, indicates that the aforementioned four categories were not intended to be treated at par in terms of reservation.

¶191

In the circumstances, we are of the considered view 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 percentage 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.

Judgment

WP5999-2025+2.odt

21

Thus, we do not find any error committed by the Tribunal in holding that Section 4(3) of the Act of 2001 does not suggest that the candidates are to be selected from the common merit list and accordingly, rejected the prayers made by the petitioners to fill in the vacant seats of VJ(A) and NT(D) categories by preparing common merit list from NT(B) and NT(C) categories, on merit basis. 37. As regards the second issue involved as regards horizontal reservation, the law in this regard is no more res integra . The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anil Kumr Gupta (supra), held thus :

¶196

“ 18. Now, coming to the correctness of the procedure prescribed by the revised notification for filling up the seats, it was wrong to direct the fifteen per cent special reservation seats to be filled up first and then take up the OC (merit) quota (followed by filling of OBC, SC and ST quotas). The proper and correct course is to first fill up the OC quota (50%) on the basis of merit; then fill up each of the social reservation quotas, i.e., SC, ST and BC; the third step would be to find out how many candidates belonging to special reservations have been selected on the above basis. 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. (If, however, it is a case of compartmentalised horizontal reservation, then the process of verification and adjustment/accommodation as stated above should be applied separately to each of the vertical

Judgment

WP5999-2025+2.odt

22

reservations. In such a case, the reservation of fifteen per cent in favour of special categories, overall, may be satisfied or may not be satisfied.) Because the revised notification provided for a different method of filling the seats, it has contributed partly to the unfortunate situation where the entire special reservation quota has been allocated and adjusted almost exclusively against the OC quota.”

¶201

Thus, we do not find any error committed by the Tribunal in observing that the horizontal quota is to be filled within the vertical category only and cannot travel from one vertical category to any other vertical category. 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 the merit.

¶202

In the above referred backdrop, considering the number of vacancies fell in VJ(A) and NT(D) categories, the Tribunal has rightly directed to fill-in these vacancies in the proportion of the reservation percentage of the respective category for the purpose of vertical reservation. And for horizontal reservation, it is rightly directed to recalculate the total number of vacancies in NT(B) and NT(C) categories. However, a modification is necessary to the extent that while doing so it is to be

¶203

Judgment 23

¶204

WP5999-2025+2.odt

¶205

examined whether the required number of candidates belonging to the horizontal category have already been selected within respective vertical categories, namely NT(B) and NT(C). If the quota is already satisfied, nothing further is required. However, if it is not satisfied, then additional candidates from the horizontal category must be adjusted within their respective vertical categories. 40. Accordingly, we pass the following order :

¶206

Writ Petition Nos.5999 of 2025, 6063 of 2025 and 6762 of 2025 are dismissed , with the modification that, after recalculating the total number of vacancies in NT(B) and NT(C) categories for the purpose of horizontal reservation, it shall be examined whether the requisite number of candidates belonging to the horizontal category have already been selected within their respective vertical categories, namely NT(B) and NT(C). In the event the prescribed quota is found to have been duly satisfied, no further action shall be necessary. However, if the quota is not satisfied, the respondents shall ensure that the requisite number of candidates from the horizontal category are duly adjusted within their

Judgment

WP5999-2025+2.odt

24

respective vertical categories, in accordance with law. Rule stands discharged. No order as to costs.

¶211

(ANIL S. KILOR, J ) (CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶212

RRaut.

¶213

Signed by: Raut (RR) Designation: PS To Honourable Judge Date: 02/05/2026 12:11:46

Manjusha D/O Sainath Sadulwar and Anr. v. the State of Maha. Thr. Its Principal Sec. Dept. of Home Affairs and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manjusha D/O Sainath Sadulwar and Anr. v. the State of Maha. Thr. Its Principal Sec. Dept. of Home Affairs and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Laxmibai Sampatrao Mahajan (Dead) through Lrs Chandrashekhar S/O Sampatrao Mahajan and Others vs Ramaji Saoji Mahajan (Dead) Thr. Lrs. Raju Ramaji Mahajan and Others

Smt. Vipan Rajendrakumar Vaid vs Smt. Champabai Ramprasad Pure and Others

Manjusha D/O Sainath Sadulwar and Anr. vs the State of Maha. Thr. Its Principal Sec. Dept. of Home Affairs and Ors.

Manjusha D/O Sainath Sadulwar and Anr. vs the State of Maha. Thr. Its Principal Sec. Dept. of Home Affairs and Ors.

Lalan Kishor Singh vs the Union of India, Ministry of Home Affairs (Mha), Thr. Secretary, New Delhi and Others

Swapnil @ Tawry S/O Rajendra Ramteke vs the State of Maharashtra Thr Pso Ps Imamwada Nagpur