(1) WP­5900.2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.5900 OF 2008 Pundlik s/o Sakharam Kanherkar, Aged : 25 years, Occu.: Nil, R/o. Incha, Tq. & Dist. Hingoli PETITIONER VERSUS 1. The State of Maharashtra, through the Secretary to the Government of Maharashtra, in Rural Development Department, Mantralaya, Fort, Mumbai­32 2. The Zilla Parishad, Hingoli, through its Chief Executive Officer 3. The Dy. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Hingoli 4. Shivaji Giri, Aged 45 years, Occu.: Service as Dy. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Hingoli 5. Mahadevi D/o Subhash Panchal, Aged : 28 years, Occu.: Service as Gramsevak, R/o. Anjansonda, Tq. Chakur, Dist. Latur RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. V.M. Kagne, Advocate h/f. Mr. S.S. Choudhari, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. K.G. Patil, A.G.P. for the Respondent­State. Mr. Vivek Bhavthankar, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3 Mr. A.V. Patil, Advocate for the respondent no.5 ..... (2) WP­5900.2008 CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE & M.T. JOSHI, JJ. DATED : 28TH JULY, 2011 JUDGMENT (PER ­ M.T. JOSHI, J.): 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, by consent. The petitioner is challenging the select list for the post of contractual Gramsevak to be appointed in the establishment of the respondent no.2­Zilla Parishad, Hingoli. 2. The advertisement for the post was issued in a newspaper for 16 posts. Out of those 16 posts, five posts were reserved for the physically handicapped candidates. The information was given by the respondent no.2­Zilla Parishad to the petitioner in response to the application under the Right to Information Act that out of these five posts, two posts were reserved for low vision candidate, two for hearing impaired and one for orthopedically challenged candidate. The petitioner applied in open category as orthopedic handicapped candidate. In response to the application under the Right to Information Act, the respondent no.2 communicated (3) WP­5900.2008 that the petitioner has secured 80 marks in the written examination held by the Maharashtra Knowledge Corporation Ltd. However, since the select list showed that the respondent no.5 Mahadevi D/o Subhash Panchal from handicapped orthopedic­O.B.C. category is selected having secured aggregate 64.61 marks (including written examination as well as oral interview), the petitioner has challenged her selection and claims that the name of respondent no.5 be deleted and his name be included in the select list. 3. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the reservation for physically handicapped candidates is not a vertical reservation but a horizontal reservation. Since respondent no.5 Mahadevi D/o Subhash Panchal is from other backward class category i.e. a social reservation and also physically handicapped (orthopedic), the select list is legal and proper. 4. Reliance is placed on the ratio in the case of Hari Om Awasthi and others Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and ors. in Civil Appeal no. 3132 (4) WP­5900.2008 of 2007 (http://JUDIS.nic.in of Supreme Court of India). In this case, the nature of horizontal reservation and vertical reservation has been explained by referring to the ratio in the case of Indra Sawhney V. Union of India (1992 Supp.(3) SCC 217). 5. From the said exposition on the subject, it is clear that while social reservation i.e. the caste reservation is referred as vertical reservation other special reservations are called horizontal reservations. These horizontal reservations cut across the vertical reservations. The horizontal reservations include the reservations for woman, ex­ serviceman, physically handicapped categories etc. If sufficient number of candidates for special reservations are available in the already selected list, comprising of the candidates from the social reservations, open merit candidate etc. then there is no need to include any additional candidate from the special reservations. 6. In view of the above legal position, as respondent no.5­Mahadevi D/o Subhash Panchal is of (5) WP­5900.2008 other backward class category and was included in the select list, as such i.e. in vertical reservation, she being woman as well as handicapped (orthopedic), there was no need to include any other candidate from special reservation of that class in the select list. 7. In view of these circumstances, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. Sd/­ Sd/­ [M.T. JOSHI, J.] [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] arp/