Deepika v. State of H.P & Ors.

Order

- 4 “1. Solan 2. Shimla 3. Sirmour 4. Bilaspur 5. Kangra 6. Una 7. Hamirpur 8. Mandi 9. Kullu 10. Chamba 11. Kinnaur 12. Lahaul & Spiti.” 3(iv). Petitioner was called interview by the respondent-Department. The result of the interview was declared on 27.08.2024. Petitioner was declared successful and placed at merit rank 450 in the consolidated merit list.

She, however, was not allotted her first preference of District Solan, rather, was allotted District Shimla, which was her second preference. Taking stock of her position with merit rank 450, the petitioner made a representation to the respondents the same day, i.e. 27.08.2024, with the grievance that:- She belongs to District Solan; Her first preference was District Solan; She ranks higher in merit; The candidates below her in merit have been allotted District Solan; and she was also required to be allotted District Solan as per her first preference. Hearing no response, petitioner instituted this writ petition. 5 On 09.09.2024, notice of this writ petition was issued and the respondents were directed to file reply/ instructions. Despite grant of repeated opportunities thereafter, reply to the petition has not been filed, though instructions have been placed on record pursuant to the orders passed from time to time. These instructions are dated nil August, 2025, nil September, 2025 and

16.12.2025. A compendium of documents was also placed on record alongwith instructions dated 16.12.2025.

4. Consideration 4(i). Respondents have not disputed the fact that the petitioner had emerged as a meritorious candidate belonging to reserved category. That had the petitioner continued to remain in the reserved category, she would have been allotted District Solan, which was her first preference, in view of her merit position in that category. According respondents, petitioner, being a meritorious reserved category candidate and having scored marks much more than the cut-off in the general category, had to be shifted from reserved category to General category. She was accordingly shifted to General category, where her position went down in the merit list. As a consequence thereof, the candidates above her in the 6 general category were adjusted as per their order of preference for allocation of districts. In this manner, the petitioner, as per her turn and merit position in the general category, was allotted District Shimla, which was her second preference. 4(ii). In Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P.2, after referring to previous precedents in the timeline on vertical reservation, it was held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the candidates belonging to any of the vertical reservation categories are entitled to be selected in open or general category. It was also held that if such candidates belonging to reserved categories are entitled to be selected on the basis of their own merit, their selection cannot be counted against the quota reserved for the categories to which they belonged. Further in Sadhana Singh Dangi v. Pinki Asati3, it was reiterated that reserved category candidates securing higher marks than the last of the general category candidates are entitled to get post/seat in unreserved categories. That even while applying horizontal reservation, merit must be given precedence and if the candidates, who