UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus M. SELVAKUMAR & ANR.
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 137, Supreme Court of India, 2017
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 137 
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 
v. 
M. SELVAKUMAR & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 858 of2017) 
A 
JANUARY 24, 2017 
B 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND ASIIOK BIIUSIIAN, JJ.) 
Constitution of India: 
Arts. 14 and 16 - Civil services examination - Increase in 
number of attempts from 4 to 7 for Physically Handicapped 
candidates of General Category ..:_No further increase in the number 
of attempts from 7 for the Physically Handicapped candidates of 
OBC category - Whether violative of Art. 14 - Held: Art. 16 provides 
for two types of reservation i.e. vertical/social reservation [as 
provided in Art. 16 (4))] and horizontal reservation [as provided in 
Art. 16 (J)] - Reservation of Physically Handicapped is a kind of 
horizontal reservation - Reserved categ01y candidates belonging 
to OBC are separately entitled for the benefit which flow from 
vertical reservation - Horizontal reservation being different from 
vertical reservation, no discrimination can be found when Physically 
Handicapped candidates of both the categories get equal chances 
(i.e. 7) to appear in the examination - A Physically Handicapped, 
be it from General Catego1y or OBC, suffering from similar disability, 
has to be treated alike in extending the relaxation and concession -
Moreove1; the horizontal reservation and relaxation for Physically 
Handicapped Categ01y, being a matter of Government Policy, is 
not in the domain of the court to interfere with the same - Civil 
Services Examination Rules - r. 6 -
Service Lmv - Reservation -
Judicial Review. 
Judicial Review: 
Judicial review of Policy decision - Scope of - Held: It is not 
in the domain of the courts to embark upon an inquily as io whether 
a particular policy is acceptable or whether better policy could be 
evolved - Court can only interfere, if the policy is absolutely 
capricious and non-informed by reasons, or totally arbitrary, 
offending the basic requirement of Art. 14 of the Constitution. 
137 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
138 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. Article 16 of the Constitution provides for 
equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The State 
in terms of Article 16 of th~ -Constitution provides two types of 
reservations i.e. a vertical or social reservation as provided for 
in Article 16 sub clause (4) and horizontal reservation which is 
referable to Article 16 sub clause (1). Special reservation in favour 
of physically handicapped, women etc. under Article 16(1) or 15(3) 
of the Constitution are the instances of horizontal reservation. 
In the Civil Services Examination, both vertical and horizontal 
reservations are provided for. [Paras 23 and 25] [148-E-F; 149-EJ 
Indra Sawhney and Others v. Union of India and Others 
1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 217: [1992] 2 Suppl. SCR 454 -
followed. 
2. A Reservation for Physically Handicapped is a kind of 
horizontal reservation. Physically handicapped persons belonging 
to any category i.e. General, OBC, SC/ST have to be given 
opportunity to come up and compete in the mainstream, and enjoy 
all the benefits and developments. The Parliament, with a view 
to implement the above, enacted 'The Persons with Disabilities 
(Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) 
Act, 1995'. [Para 30] [151-G-II] 
Union of India and Another v. National Federation of 
the Blind & Others (2013) 10 SCC 772 : [2013] 9 
SCR 1023 - relied on. 
3. All
Physically Handicapped Category candidates have 
been granted uniform relaxation of upper age by 10 years, as per 
Rule 6, in addition to relaxation in age of 5 years for SC Category 
candidates and 3 years for OBC Category candidates as per Note-
1 of Rule 6, the benefit of age relaxation can be taken by Reserved 
Category candidates cumulatively. [Para 28] [151-C-D] 
4. Last sub rule of Rule 4 indicates that the 3rd proviso 
contains. a theme .of relaxation pertaining to Physically 
Handicapped candidates who are eligible to avail reservation 
applicable to such candidates. Provided further that a physically 
handicapped will get as many attempts as are available to other 
non-physically handicapped candidates of his or her community.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. M. SELVAKUMAR & ANR. 
The above is subject to the condition that a physically handicapped 
candidate belonging to the General category shall be eligible for 
seven attempts. Thus, a Physically Handicapped candidate of 
General Category has been given equal chance as compared to a 
Physically Handicapped candidate belonging to OBC. No 
discrimination can be read, when the number of attempts for both 
the above categories has been made equal i.e. 7. [Para 29] 
[151-E-F] 
5. When the attempts of Physically Handicapped candidates 
of OBC Category and Physically Handicapped candidates of 
General Category, who appeared in the Civil Services 
Examination are made equal, and a Physically Handicapped 
candidate belonging to OBC Category, in addition to 10 years 
relaxation in age also enjoys 3 years more age relaxation for 
appearing in the examination, it cannot be said that there is 
discrimination between Physically Handicapped candidates of 
OBC Category and Physically Handicapped Candidates of General 
Category. The reserved category candidate belonging to OBC 
are separately entitled for the benefit which flow from vertical 
reservation, and the horizontal reservation being different from 
vertical reservation, no discrimination can be found when 
Physically Handicapped candidates of both the above categories 
get equal chances i.e. 7 to appear in the examination. [Para 32] 
[152-E-G] 
Mahesh Gupta and Others v. Yashwant Kumar Ahirwar 
and Others
(2007) 8 SCC 621 : [2007] 9 SCR 578 -
relied on. 
6. The present case is not a case of treating unequals as 
equal. It is a case of extending concessions and relaxations to 
the Physically Handicapped candidates belonging to General . 
Category as well as Physically Handicapped belonging to OBC 
Category. Physically Handicapped Category is a Category in itself, 
a person who is physically handicapped be it Physically 
Handicapped of a General Category or OBC Category, suffering 
from similar disability has to be treated alike in extending the 
relaxation and concessions. Both being provided 7 attempts to 
appear in Civil Services Examination, no discrimination or 
arbitrariness can be found in the above scenario. [Para 37] 
[155-E·FJ 
139 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
140 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
Justice Sunanda Bhandare Foundation v. Union of 
India and Others (2014) SCC 383 - relied on. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Indra Smvhney and Others " Union of India and Others 
1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 217 : [1992] 2 Suppl. SCR 454 -
distinguished. 
Anamol Bhandari (Minor) through his Father/Natural 
Guardian v. Delhi Technological University 2012 (131) 
DRJ 583 - referred to. 
'"'7, The horizontal reservation and relaxation for Physically 
Handicapped Category candidates for 
Civil Services 
Examination, is a matter of Governmental policy and the 
Government after considering the relevant materials have 
extended relaxation and con'cessions to the Physically 
Handicapped candidates belonging to the Reserved Category as 
well as General Category. It is not in the domain of the courts to 
embark upon an inquiry as to whether a particular public policy is 
wise and acceptable or whether better policy could be evolved. 
The Court can only interfere if the policy framed is absolutely 
capricious and non-informed by reasons, or totally arbitrary, 
offending the basic requirement of the Article 14 of the 
Constitution. [Para 47] [160-F-G] 
NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijaywada v_ G 
Babu Rajendra Prasad and Another (2003) 5 SCC 
350 : [2003] 2 SCR 781 - relied on. 
8. The World Bank Report of May 2007, relied by the 
respondent, gives a detailed figure of different categories of 
differcntly-ablcd persons, disability prevalence rate in
different 
countries and different other factors which docs not throw any 
liglit on the issues which are before this Court. Hence, r~liancc 
placed on the abovementioncd Report is misplaced. [Para 46] 
[160-D] 
9. The Press Note dated 22.04.2,007 sp'Clled out the 
objective and policy of the _Government of India, to which it is 
entitled to frame and implement. The decision to improve access 
and increase the representation of the physically challenged 
persons is referred to in the 1st paragraph. The 2nd Paragraph 
H 
noticed the decision of the Government to give 7 attempts to
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. M. SELVAKUMAR & ANR. 
141 
physically challenged persons belonging to General Category, as 
A 
against existing 4 attempts. The Press Note thus reflects the 
policy of the Government and the said policy statement in no 
manner helps the respondent in the present case. [Para 50] 
[161-G-H; 16~-Al 
State of Kerala and Another v. N M Thomas and Others 
B 
(1976) 2 SCC 310 : [1976] 1 SCR 906 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
[1992] 2 Suppl. SCR 454 
followed 
Para 18 
[1976] 1 SCR 906 
referred to 
Para 18 
(2013] 9 SCR 1023 
relied on 
Para 18 
(2014) sec 383 
relied on 
Para 18 
[1992) 2 Suppl. SCR 454 
distinguished 
Para 24 
(2013) 9 SCR 1023 
referred to 
Para 31 
[2007] 9 SCR 578 
relied on 
Para 33 
[2014) 4 SCR 113 
referred to 
Para 37 
2012 (131) DRJ 583 
referred to 
Para 40 
(2003] 2 SCR 781 
relied on 
Para 48 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 858 of 
2017. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2012 of the High Court 
of Judicature at Madras in W.P. (C) No. 18705 of 2010 
WITH 
C. A. Nos. 859 and 860 of 2017. 
V. Mohana, Sr. Adv., Sanyat Lodha, Ms. Gunwant Dara, Mukesh 
Kumar Maroria, Ms. Binu Tamta, Rajan Mati, Ms. Jyoti Me~diratta, 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
Satya Mitra, Advs. for the appearing parties. 
H
142 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
' 
I 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 ?.C.R. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
ASHOK BHUSHAN J. f: L~ave granted. 
' 
1 
' 
' 
,, 
2. These appeals have been filed challenging the judgments of 
Madras High Court and Delhi High Court allowing the writ petitions 
filed by Physically Handicapped candiqates belonging to Other Back~ard 
Classes ( OBC), claiming tl1at they are entitled to avail I 0 attempts instead 
of7 atte.mpts in the Civil Services Examination. The challenge is on the · . 
ground that since the attempts for Physieally Handicapped candidates 
belonging to General Category have been increased from 4 to 7, w.e.f. 
2007 Civil.Services Ex.amination, there should be 1:l proportionate increase 
in attempts to b.e taken by Physically Handicapped <;:andidates belonging 
to the OBC Category. 
3 .. C. A. No. 858 of2017@ Special Leave Pet.ition (Civil) No. 
21587of2013 had been filed against the judgment of the Divisii;m Bench 
of Madras High Court dated)4. l.20i 2 in Writ Petition ( c )No. 18705 of 
2010 titled M. Selvakumar versus Centml Administrative Tribunal 
and Others . 
. 4. C. A. No. 859 of2017@.Sp~cial L.eave Petition (Civil) No., 
18420 of 2015, U11io11 Public Service. Commissio11versus Tus/rnr. 
Kesltaorao Deslimukli a11d Another and C. A: No. 860 of 2017 @ 
SLP ©No. 2~885 of 2015. Ut1io11 of India versus Tuslutr Keslutorao 
Deslimuk/1 and Another have been filed against the sa.n~e judgment of 
Delhi High Court dated
13.10.2014 in Writ Petition (c),No. 73,7? of2013 . 
. 5. The Delhi High Court in its judgme11t d&t!!d 1·3 .. 1,0.2Pl4 ~as 
followed the judgment of Madras High Court in M. Selvaku11u11: 's case 
(Supra). 
· 
· 
· 
· 
CA No. 858 of 2017 @SLP (C) 21587 OF 2013 
6. The Respon4ent M. Selvakumar, an orthopaedically differently-
abled person belonging to Other Backward Class (OBC) applied for 
Civil Services Examination for the first time in the year 1998. The 
Respondent took 7 attempts between the examination held in the year 
1998 to 2!006, but failed to qualify the same. 
' · 
7. Prior to 2007 Examination, Physically Handicapped candidates 
belonging to General Category were entitled to take only'4· atte'mpfr' · 
which were allowed to General Category Candidate also, whereas,
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. M. SELVAKUMAR & ANR. 
(ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 
Physically Handicapped candidates belonging to OBC Category were 
entitled to take 7 attempts equal to OBC Category candidates also. There 
was no restrictibn on the number of attempts for candidates belonging to 
SC/ST Category. 
8. The Central Government is authorised to frame rules for 
recruitment of Civil Services Examination as per All India Services Act, 
1951. By Notification dated 29 .12.2007, the Central Government amended 
the Civil Services Examination Rule by adding a condition that Physically 
Handicapped Candidate belonging to General Category shall be eligible 
for 7 attempts. 
9. The Respondent submitted his application in response to the 
Notification dated 29.12.2007, appearing for his 9'h attempt. The 
candidature was not accepted, as he had already exhausted his 7 attempts 
at the examination. The Respondent filed an 0. A. No. 905 of 2008 
before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, praying for 
the following reliefs: 
"(i) To declare that the clause 3(iv) of the notification dated 
29.12.2007 in respect of the civil service preliminary 
examination, 2008 published in the employment news 
29.12.2007-04.01.2008 edition as illegal in so far as not 
giving three more additional attempts to the physically 
handicapped in the other backward class apart from being 
discriminatory, violation of article 14 and in violation of 
the basic frame work of the PWD Act, 1995. 
(ii)
Consequently direct the 2"'1 respondent to extend three 
more attempts to the applicant for the .Civil services 
preliminary examination. 
(iii) Pass such other orders or direction as this Hon 'ble 
Tribunal may deem fit in' the circumstances of the case 
and to award costs and render justice. " 
. This application was contested by the Union oflndia. 
10. The Tribunal vide its judgment and order dated 17.03.2010, 
refused to condone the delay of 883 days in filing the application and 
consequently dismissed the same. The Respondent filed a Writ Petition 
before the Madras High Court, challenging the order of the Tribunal. 
143 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
144 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 4 S.C.K 
The High Court vide its judgment and order dated 24.01.2012, allowed 
the writ petition, setting aside the order of the Tribunal. It was held that 
increasing number of attempts in respect of Physically Handicapped 
candidates in the General Category from 4 to 7 and not increasing 
proportionally the attempts for Physically Handicapped candidates 
belonging to OBC Category candidates is arbitrary. It was held that the 
Petitioner (Respondent in the present appeal) is further entitled to 3 
more chances. The Union of India aggrieved by the said judgment has 
filed the SLP (c)No. 21587 of2013. 
C.A. No. 859 of 2017 @ S.L.P.(C) N0.18420 OF 2015 & C.A. 
No. 860 of 2017 S.L.P.(C) N0.25885 OF 2015 
11. The common respondent in the aforesaid appeals is a Physically 
Handicapped candidate belonging to the OBC Category who. had 
submitted an application for Civil Services Examination, 2012. Although, 
he was permitted to appear in the Preliminary Examination but when he 
submitted the detailed application form for appearing in the Main 
Examination, the Union Public Service Commission, having noticed that 
he had already exhausted his 7 attempts at the examination, issued a 
show cause notice and rejected his candidature for the 2012 Examination. 
The candidate aggrieved by the rejection of his candidature filed an 0. 
A. No. 930of2013 in the Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, 
Delhi. 
12. The O.A. was
contested by the Commission, stating that the 
applicant in his application had not correctly mentioned the number of 
attempts undertaken by him, and after scrutiny it was found that he had 
already availed as many as 8 attempts at the examination, exhausting 
the maximum number of attempts permissible to his Category, i.e. 
Physically Handicapped candidates belonging to OBC Category, thereby 
his candidature was rightly cancelled. It was also submitted that the 
Writ Petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands as he had 
not disclosed correctly, the number of attempts undertaken by him. There 
being suppression of the facts and the applicant not being eligible to 
appear in 2012 Examination, his candidature was rightly rejected. 
13. The Tribwml vide its judgment and order dated 19.07.2013 
dismissed the 0. A. The Respondent challenged the order of the Tribunal 
before the Delhi High Court by filing a Writ Petition (c) No .. 7377 of 
2013. The Respondent in his Writ Petition relied upon judgment of the
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. M. SELVAKUMAR & ANR. 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 
Madras High Court in M. Selvukunwr (supr(l). The Delhi High Court 
held that as long as the declaration oflaw as held in M. Se/v(lku11wr's 
case stands, the Tribunal ought to have followed it. The Delhi High Court 
following the judgment of M. Se/v(lkUm(lr agreed with the view of the 
Madras High Court, and stated that in the case of OBC Candidates, 7 
attempts permitted to both physically-abled candidates and those with 
disability is discriminatory. The Delhi High Court allowed the Writ Petition 
and set aside the rejection of the candidature of the Petitioner and directed 
for declaration of the result and ifthe Petitioner was found successful, 
his claim for appointment was directed to be processed. 
14. The Union Public Service Commission filed an appeal 
challenging the above judgment dated 13.10.2014 and this Court on 
08.07.2015 stayed the operation of the aforesaid judgment of the Delhi 
High Court. 
15. We have heard Mrs. V. Mohana, Senior Advocate Mr. Sanyat 
Lodha, Ms. Gunwant Dara and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroriya for the 
appellants and Mr. Rajanmani, Ms. Jyoti Mendiratta and Mr. Satya M~tra 
for the respondents. 
16. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the view taken 
by both the Madras High Court and the Delhi High Court, that there is 
discrimination, since attempts permitted for Physically Handicapped 
candidates belonging to the General Category and that of Physically 
Handicapped
candidates belonging to OBC Category have been made 
equal, is erroneous. It is contended that Physically Handicapped 
candidates both of General Category and OBC are entitled for 7 chances 
as per Civil Services Examination Rules. The candidature of the 
Respondents in both the appeals having exhausted their 7 permissible 
attempts, was rightly rejected. The Madras High Court although did not 
quash the Civil Services Examination Rule, but had directed that 
Physically Handicapped candidates belonging to OBC should be given 3 
additional attempts on erroneous grounds. It is contended that the 
relaxation granted to different categories of candidates in the Civil 
Services Examination is a matter of policy for the Union of India and 
there being no error in the said policy, the High Court ought not to have 
tinkered with the Civil Services Examination Rules, by directing something 
contrary to the Rules. It is submitted that after the 2007 Examination, 
the attempts for Physically Handicapped candidates belonging to General 
145 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
146 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
Category were increased to 7, which is at par with the Physically 
Handicapped candidates belonging to the OBC Category. There is neither 
any discrimination norany arbitrariness. 
17. Refuting the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, 
learned counsel for the -respondents contended that the Government to 
achieve the objective of increasing the representation of disabled persons 
in the Civil Services has increased the number of attempts for Physically 
. Handicapped candidates belonging to General Category by 3 more · 
attempts. The aforesaid increase of3 more attempts ought to have been 
granted to disabled persons of the OBC category as well. .Equating the 
number of attempts for disabled persons from open category with the 
number of attempts for disabled persons in the OBC Category, the 
Government is treating the unequals equally which is forbidden under 
Article 14 and 16( 1 ). 
18. Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on 
the decision of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition (c) No. 4853 of 
2012 Anamol Blwiu/ari (Minor) ·1Jiroug/i liis Fat/ier/Natural 
Guardian versus De/Iii Tecluwlogica/ University decided on· 
12.09.20.12 and of this Court in Indra Sawlmey mu/ Others versus 
Union of India and Others 1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 217, State of Kera/a 
and Another versus N. M. Thomas and Others (1976) 2 SCC 310, 
Union of lndia and Another versus National Federation of the
Blind 
& Others (2013) 10 SCC 772 and judgment of this Court in_ Justice 
Su11amla Blwndare Foundation versus Union of India and Others 
(2014) SCC 383. Learned counsel has also relied on Press Note dated 
27•h April, 2007 issued by Government oflndia, Ministry.of Personnel, 
Public Grievances and Pensions as well as the rep01i of May 2007 
issued by the World Bank "People with disabilities in 
India ............................. from commitments to outcomes". 
19. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel 
of the concerned parties and perused the records. Before we proceed 
to the respective submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, it is 
relevant to refer to the Civil Services Examination Rules which governed 
the field. The Respondent in Madras High Court case has appeared in 
2008 Examination whereas Respondent in Delhi High Court Case has 
appeared in 2012 Examination in which, their respective candidatures 
were rejected on the ground that they have exhausted the maximum 
permissible attempts i.e. 7.
·Vl'.'JION OF INDIA & ORS. v. M. SELVAKUMAR & ANR. 
147 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 
' 
' 
20. The Notification dated 29 .12.2007 has been filed as Annexure 
A 
P-1 to SLP(C) 2'1'587 of2()13 (dr g0verning 2008 Examination. Para 4 
which perfained to the number of attempts is as follows: 
"4. Every canaidate appearing at the examination who is 
otherwise eligible, shall be perinitted four attempts at the 
exainination. 
Provided that this restriction on 'the number of attempts 
will not apply .in the. case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 
Tribes candidates. who are ~therwise eligible: 
, ': .. 
Provided further that the number of attempts permissible 
to candidates belonging to Other Backward Classes, who are 
otherwise eligible, shall be seven. The relaxation will be 
available to the candidates who are eligible to avail of 
reservation applicable to such candidates. 
Provided further that a physically handicapped will get 
as many attempts as are "available to other non-physically 
handicapped candidates of his or her community, subject to 
the condition that a physically handicapped candidate 
belonging to the General Category shall be eligible for seven 
attempts. The relaxation will be available to the physically 
handicapped candidates who are eligible to avail of 
reservation applicable to such candidates. " 
21. Another rule which is of the relevance here is Rule 6. Rule 
6(a) provides that candidate must have attained 'the age of21 years and 
must not have attained the
age of 30 years as on the I" of 
August.. ............ ' 
"6(a) a candidate must have attained the age of.21 years and 
must not have attained the age of 30 years on the ]"of August, 
2008 i.e. he must have been born not earlier than 2"J August, 
1978 and not later than ]"August, 1987." 
Rule 6(b) provides for relaxation of upper age limit. Rule 6(b) (i), 
(ii) and (vii) with note one which is relevant is as quoted below: 
"6(b) The upper age-limit prescribed above will be relaxable: 
, 
(i) Up to a maximum of five years if a candidate belongs to 
a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe; 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
148 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017) 4 S.C.R. 
A 
(ii) 
Up to a maximum of three years in the case of candidates 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
belonging to Other Backward Classes who are eligible to 
avail of reservation applicable to such candidates; 
(vii) upto a maximum of JO years, in the case, of blind, deaf 
mute and Orthopaedically handicapped persons, 
Note I-Candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the 
Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes who are also 
covered under any other clauses of Rule 6(b) above, viz. those 
coming under the category of Ex-servicemen, persons domiciled in 
the State of J & K, blind, deaf-mute and orthopaedically 
handicapped etc. will be eligible for grant of cumulative age-
relaxation under both the categories." 
22. The Rules as extracted above for 2008 Examination are 
identical with regard to Civil Service Examination 2012 as it appears 
from the Notification dated 04.02.2012, brought on record in SLP (C) 
No. 18420 of 2015. The reference of Rule for 2008 Examination as 
quoted above shall be sufficient to decide the issue. 
23. Article 16 of the Constitution provides for equality of opportunity 
in matters of public employment. The State in terms of Article 16 of the 
Constitution provides t\_\'O types of reservations i.e. a vertical or social 
reservation as provided for i11 Article 16 sub clause ( 4) and horizontal 
reservation which is referable to Article 16 sub clause (I). Special 
reservation in favour of physically
handicapped, women etc. under Article 
16(1) or 15(3) of the Constitution are the instances of horizontal 
reservation. 
24. A 9-Judges Bench in Jndm Sawlmey and Others versus 
U11io11 of India and Others 1992 Suppl. (3) SCC 217 had elaborately 
considered both the concepts of reservation. In Para 812 of the said 
judgment, Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy, has referred to both the types of 
reservations. It was held that horizontal reservations cut across the vertical 
reservation. Following was stated: 
"812. There are two types of reservations, which may; for the 
sake of convenience, be referred to as 'vertical reservations ' 
and 'horizontal reservations'. The reservations in favour of 
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and other backward 
classes [under Article 16(4)) may be called vertical
UNION OF INDlA & ORS. v. M. SELVAKUMAR & ANR. 
149 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 
reservations whereas reservations in favour of physically 
handicapped [under clause (1) of Article 16] can be referred 
to as horizontal reservations. Horizontal reservations cut 
across the vertical reservations - what is called interlocking 
reservations. To be more precise, suppose 3% of the vacancies 
are reserved in favour of physically handicapped persons; 
this would be a reservation relatable to clause (1) of Article 
16. The persons selected against this quota will be placed in 
the appropriate category; if he belongs to SC category he 
will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments; 
similarly, if he belongs to open competition (OC) category, 
he will be placed in that category by making necessary 
adjustments. Even after providing for these horizontal 
reservations, the percentage of reservations in favour of 
backward class of citizens remains - and should remain - the 
same. This is how these reservations are worked out in several 
States and there is no reason not to continue that procedure." 
25. In the present case before us, issues centre around, the second 
category ofreservation i.e. horizontal reservations which is provided for 
. candidates belonging to the Category of Physically Handicapped. ln the 
Civil Services Examination both vertical and horizontal reservations are 
provided for. The reservation for SC/ST and Other Backward Classes 
(OBC) which has been
provided for in the Civil Services Examination 
with regard to number of posts is not in issue rather what is the content 
of horizontal reservation provided for Physically Handicapped Category 
in Civil Services Examinat"ion is up for consideration. Especially, as to 
whether in grant of relaxation with regard to number of attempts to 
appear in the Civil Services Examination in context of Physically 
Handicapped candidates of General Category to 7 and not further 
increasing the number of attempts for OBC Physically Handicapped 
candidates from 7, there is a discrimination or violation of Article 14 of 
the Constitution, is the moot question to be answered. 
26. From the Rules of Civil Services Examination, as noticed above 
following result in context ofnumber of attempts is discernable: 
"(i) Every candidate appearing at the examiiiation who is 
otherwise eligible, shall be permitted 4 attempts at the 
examination 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
150 
A 
B 
:c·. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
(ii) The. first proviso to 1he rules provided that the restriction 
of the number of attempts will not apply in the case of 
Sc;IST candiqqtes 
,. 
(iii) The Second proviso of the Rule provided that attempts 
permissible to candidates belonging to Other Backward 
Class shall be 7. 
(iv) The Third proviso to rule provides that a physically 
handicapped will get as many (Jtlempts as are available 
.. 
. t.o other non-physically handicapped candidates of his 
· 
();. her i:ofri,m'imity, subject to the conditio~z Jhat a 
.fJhystca!fy h~ndicapped qahdidate oe'!'dnging Yo ihe 
; generai categ-Or~ sh'all be' ei(gible fbr; 7 'f.Jtie~llptS.'" . ' ' 
.27. The maitt plank o.(thearguments of.Respondents is that prior 
to 2007 Civil Services Examination, number of attempts for candidates 
belonging to General Category i!1cluding Physically Haqdicapped was 
only 4 and it was only in 2Q07. that number of attemptsfor phys.ically 
.handicapped candidates of General.Category were increased from 4 to 
7. And since no ,proportionate. incre~~e i" tli~ number of\ltte)llpt~ for 
. , PhysicallyJ:fandicapped Category cai:i~idate.s,ofQBC w.11s.111.a?e, the 
grant to.the respondeµt is ar~itr;:iry ;rnd discriminatory being violative of 
Arti.cle 14_. At this juncture, it is releva11t.to rote therfi!asons,giyen by 
Madras High Court for allowing the writ pi:titions. fo 'para No·. 6 and 7 
of the judgment, the Madras High Co~rt
observed iis follows: · · 
· "6 .... When the ·number of attempts· has been increased from 
four. to seven in respect of physicpl/y challenged candidates 
· in the General Category and whell there is ·no restriction with 
regard to the number of attempts for physically handicapped 
. : candidates in SC/ST category, res.tr(cting the mm1ber of 
attempts to seven in 1e.spect .of physic.ally handicapped 
. candidqtes i'! .the. 0th.er Ba<;'f>warr;l CJ.ass .. Co1111i1.lff1ity, {$. in 
vi9lation, of article. 14. of the, f.ons.M~i;tiqn of fn,dia.,.Therefqre 
we ~,old.that th.<: nu,111,b,er. Q/.a(tempf$ .qf,seven fixedJor 
physically ha.nqicappr:d candidates in.,the. Other Ba,qkward 
Class Con~mu.nity, is disproportfonate to the iiumber of attempts 
grai1ted to physically handicapped candidates in the General 
Categor)?." 
.. . . 
. · 
. ·. , 
· 
· 
. 
' . . 
. :·
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. M~ SELVAKUMAR& ANR. 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 
"7 ... .Jn this case admittedly, the number of attempts in respect 
uf physically handicapped.candidates in the General Category 
has been increased from four to seven. However, the number 
of attempts in respect of physically handicapped candidates 
belonging to Other Backward Class community has not been 
proportionately increased, which is arbitrary and prejudicial 
to the interest of.the physically handicapped candidates 
belonging to Other Backwr;rd Class Community." 
2'8. ·Whether aC:tually tliere "is,any discrimination in number of 
attempts made available to Physically H.aiidicapped candidates, belonging 
to General Category and.those of OB~ Categocy.·is the questio11to- be 
answered. All Physically Hai1dicapped Category candidates have been 
granted uniform relaxation of upper age by I 0 years, as per Rule 6, as 
quoted above in addition to relaxation in age of 5 years for SC Category 
candidates and 3 years for OBC Category candidates as per Note-I of 
Rule 6, the benefit of age relaxation can be taken by Reserved Category 
ca11didates cumulatively. 
29. Last sub rule of Rule 4 as noted above indicates tha.t the 3rct 
proviso contains .. a theme .of relaxation pertaining to Physically 
Handicapped candidates who are eligible toavailreservation applic\\bJe 
to such.candid;ites)?rovic!ed ~urtber,that a physically handicapped will 
get as many attempts as are available to other non-physically
handicapped 
cand.idates of his or her community. The above is subject to the condition 
that a physically handicapped ca11didate belonging to the General category 
shall be eligible for seven attempts: Thus, a Physically Handi€apped 
candidate ofGeneral·Category has been given equal chance as compared 
to a Physically J-landicapped ca,ndidate belonging to OBC. No 
discrimination .c;tn be read, when the number of attempts for both the 
above categories has been made equal i.e. 7. The number of attempts 
for SC/ST candtdates is unlimited-within their maximum age limit with 
regard tO 'Miich there is no challenge. 
3o. R~servation i~r Physicaily Himdicapped is a kind ofhorizontal 
reservation, as noted above. As accepted; physically handicapped persons 
belonging to any category i.e.Ge1ieral; OBC, SC/ST have·to be given · 
opportunity to come up a11d compete in the mainstream, and enjoy all tl1e 
benefits· and developments. The Parliament, with a view to implement 
the above, enacted 'The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, 
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 '. 
151 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
152 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
31. This court has time and again noted the State's obligation to 
permit overall development of all its citizens including those who are 
differently-abled. Equal opportunities have to be given to differently-
abled persons to come up and take benefit of public employment. This 
court in U11ion of India mu/ Others versus National Federation of 
Blind and Others (2013) 10 SCC 772 has laid down the following in 
para23: 
"23. India as a welfare State is committed to promote overall 
development of its citizens inpluding those who are differently 
abled in order to enable them to lead a life of dignity, equality, 
freedom and justice as mandated by the Constitution of India. 
The roots of statutory provisions for ensuring equality and 
equalization of opportunities to the differently abled citizens 
in our country could be traced in Part III and Part JV of the 
Constitution. For the persons with disabilities, the changing 
world offers more new opportunities owing to technological · 
advancement, however, the actual limitation surfaces only 
when they are not provided with equal opportunities. 
Therefore, bringing them in the society based on their 
capabilities is the need of the hour. " 
32. When the attempts of Physically Handicapped candidates of 
OBC Category and Physically Handicapped candidates of General 
Category, who appeared in the Civil Services Examination are made · 
equal, and· a Physically
Handicapped candidate belonging to OBC 
Category, in addition to 10 years relaxation in age also enjoys 3 years 
more age relaxation for appearing in the examination, we cannot agree 
with the High Court that there is discrimination between Physically 
Handicapped candidates ofOBC Category and Physically Handicapped 
Candidates of General Category. The reserved category candidate 
belonging to OBC are separately entitled for the benefit which flow 
from vertical reservation, and the horizontal reservation being different 
from vertical reservation, no discrimination can be found when Physically 
Handicapped candidates of both the above categories get equal chances 
i.e. 7 to appear in the examination. 
33. In this context, a reference to judgment of this Cou1t in Mallesll 
Gupta tmd Otlzers versus Yasltwant Kumar Altirwar and Otlzers 
(2007) 8 sec 621 shall not be out of place.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. M. SELVAKUMAR & ANR. 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 
. 
34. The State of Madhya Pradesh issued an advertisement for 
recruitment of handicapped persons to several posts. The appellants 
who were Physically Handicapped, belonging to General Category got 
selected. The Respondent No. 1, a handicapped person belonging to 
Reserved Category challenged the selection before the Administrative 
Tribunal. The Administrative Tribunal rejected the claim. Writ Petition 
was filed by the 1st Respondent. The High Court set aside the order of 
the Administrative Tribunal. High Court directed the State Government 
to examine whether posts were to be filled from the members of the ST 
Category or members of the SC Category only or from the Category of 
OBC or these posts were for all the categories as mentioned above. 
After the judgment of the High Court, a show cause notice was issued 
to the appellants and subsequently their services were terminated. 
Appellants have challenged the abovementionedjudgment of the High 
Court before this Court. This Court in the above context came to consider 
the vertical and horizontal reservations. Following was laid down by this 
cou11 in para 10, 11 and 12: 
"IO.The State in terms of Article 16 of the Constitution of India 
may make two types of reservations-vertical and 
horizontal. Article 16(4) provides for vertical reservation; 
whereas Clause (1) of Article 16 provides for horizontal 
reservation. 
11. The State adopted a policy
decision for filling up the 
reserved posts for handicapped persons. A special drive 
was to be launched therefor. The circular letter was issued 
only for the said purpose. A bare perusal of the said 
Circular Letter dated 29-3-1993 would clearly show that 
the State had made 3% reservation for blinds and 2% for 
other physically handicapped persons. Such a reservation 
falling within Clause (1) of Article 16 of the Constitution 
has nothing to do with the object and purport sought to 
be achieved by reason of Clause (4) thereof 
12. Disability has drawn the attention of the worldwide 
community. India is a signatory to various international 
treaties and conventions. The State, therefore, took a 
policy decision to have horizontal reservation with a view 
to fulfil its constitutional object as also its commitment to 
153 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
154 
A 
B 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
. 
. 
. 
[2017] 4 S.C:R. 
the international community. A disabled is a disabled. The 
· · ques·tion of making any further neservation on the basis 
.of caste, creed or nligiotr ordiliarily may not arise. They 
constitute a special. class. The advertisement, however, 
failed to mention in regard to the reservation for 
handicapped persons at the outset but, as noticed 
hereinbefore, the vacant posts were required to be .filled 
up for two categories of candidates; one for Scheduled 
Caste and Scheduled 'Tribe candidates and other for 
handicapped candidates. Handicapped candidates have 
not been furJher cJassified. as belonging to Scheduled 
Castes, Scheduled,. Tribes and general. category 
'candidates. ;, 
· 
(underlined by us) 
35. The appeal was allowed and those Physically Handicapped 
. candidates, who were selected from General Category and had their 
D 
services·subsequentlyterminated, were directed to be continued in service. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
36. Learned counsel for the respondents has also contended that 
in view of the fact that Physically Handicapped candidates of OBC 
Category are now allowed only 7 attempts which is equivalent to 
physically-abled candidates of OBC Category hence Physically 
Handicapped and Physically-abled OBC Category candidates have to 
compete which is equality between unequals violating Article 14. The 
another limb of argument is that the Physically Handicapped candidates 
of General Category and candidates of
Physically Handicapped OBC 
Category have been permitted equal attempts, which is nothing but treating 
unequals as equals violatingA1ticle 14. Relying on Indra Sawlmey versus 
Union of l11dia (supra), it is contended that equality contemplated by 
Article 14 is 1icit only when equals are treated equally but also when 
unequals are treated unequally. Cotiversely, when unequals are treated 
equally, mandate of equality before law is breached. He has relied on 
following observations made in para 415: 
"415: It is no lqnger necessary to emphasise that equality 
contemplated by Article 14 and other cognate articles 
includ~ng Articles 15(1), 16(1), 29(2) and 38(2) of the, 
. .Constitution, is secured not only when equals are treated 
equally but also when unequals are treated unequally.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. M. SELVAKUMAR & ANR. 
. 
. 
. 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 
. ' 
. 
. 
. 
. . Conversely, ,when unequals are treated eq1:1ally, the mandate 
of.equality'qefore law.is breached. To bring about equaiity 
between the wleq~~i;, therefore, it is necessary to adopt 
·positive measures to abolish inequa'!ity. The equaUzing 
measures will have to use the same tools by which' inequality 
was introduced and pe!!petuated. Otherwise, equalization will 
not be. oj the unequals. Article 14 which guarantec;s equality 
before law would;by itself; withozitany.o.ther provision in the 
Constitution, be enough, to validate such equalizing measures. 
The Founders of the Constitution, however, th.ought it 
advisable. to incorpora(e another provision, viz., Afticle 16 
spec((icqlly providingfor .equality of opportunity in matters 
of public empioyinent. Further ,they emphasfaed in (4) thereof 
that for equalizing the employi;1ei1t opportunities int.he services 
under the .State,. the Stqte m;y ·adqpt positive ineasuresjor 
reservaiion of appointments or posts in favour of any 
backward class of cili~ens which. in the opinion o/the State, 
is not'adequat'eiy represented in such services. By hii1dsight, 
the foresight shown in making the provision specifically, 
instead 'of'ledving it' only 'to the equality provision 'as under 
the U. S: Constitution, is· more than vi'ndicated. " 
37. The present case is not a c~se oftreating unequals as equal. 
It is a case of extending concessions
and relaxations to the Physically 
Handicapped candidates· belonging to General Category as well as 
Physically Handicapped belonging to OBC Category. Physically 
Handicapped Category is a Category in itself, a person who is physically · · 
handicapped be it Physically Handicapped of a General Category or· 
OBC Category, suffering from similar disability has to be treated alike.in 
extending the relaxation and concessions. Both.being provided 7 attempts 
to appear in Civil St<rvices Examination, no discrimination or arbitrariness 
·can be found in the above scenario. The judgment ofthe Apex Court 
referred to by learned counsel for the respondent Justice Summda 
Bllandare Foundation versus Union of India amt Another (2014) 
14 sec 383'needs, to be noted. 
. 
38. In the above case, the Petitioner, a charitable trust came up, 
seeking directions for implem~ntation of the provisio'ns, ~fTh'e fersons. 
with Disability (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full 
Participation) Act, 1995, in the writ petition. Under order oft11e court, 
155 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
G 
H
156 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
the Commissioners for Persons with Disability of various States and 
Union Territories were impleaded as party-respondent. The court noticed 
the counter affidavit filed by on behalf of the Chief Commissioner for 
Persons with Disability, wherein it was stated that the benefit of relaxation 
of5% inmarks obtained at the Masters Level, which was being enjoyed 
by blind/low-vision and other visually disabled persons, belonging to SCI 
ST Category, have also been extended in General to all disabled at par 
with SC/ST to bring parity among the persons. In para 6 of the judgment 
para 8 of the counter affidavit was quoted which is as follows: 
"8. The blind/low-vision and other visual(v disabled persons 
belonging to SC and ST category are in any case enjoying 
the benefit of 5% relaxation in marks obtaii1ed at the Masters 
level for appearing .in the NET examination conducted by 
UGC. By extending the same relaxation to particularly blind/ 
low-vision and in general all disabled on a par with SC and 
ST disabled would bring parity amongst all persons with 
disabilities irrespective of their vertical categories. " 
39. This court, noticing the aforesaid counter affidavit had closed 
the matter, noticing the direction ofUGC which clearly indicated that 
relaxation of 5% which was only earlier available to blind/low vision and 
another visually disabled persons, belonging to SC/ST category had been 
extended to
all disabled, which was treated as an action bringing parity 
among all the persons with disabilities. The above judgment, in no manner 
helps the respondents. 
40. Now coming to the judgment pas~ed by Delhi High Court in 
Anamol Blia11dari (supra), in the above case Delhi Technology 
University has provided I 0% of concession of marks in the minimum 
eligibility required for candidates belonging to SC/ST Category, whereas, 
relaxation of only 5% was permissible for people with disability. The 
Petitioner, who was Physically Handicapped had obtained only 52.66% 
marks and was not being considered for admission, since he was only 
eligible for relaxation of 5% and was required to have at least 55.00% 
marks. A writ petition was filed by the petitioner, seeking a direction to 
extend the same relaxation as has been extended to candidates belonging 
to SC/ST Category. The Delhi High Court also referred to the World 
Bank Report of May, 2007 'People with disability in India .................. . 
from commitment to outcome'.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. M. SELVAKUMAR & ANR. 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 
41. Delhi High Court has also, referring to the judgment of this 
Court in Writ Petition No. 116 of 1998, titled A. l Co1ifedernlio11 of 
Bli11d (llld Another versus U11io11 of India ""d Another, directed for 
extension of same relaxation to Physically Handicapped candidates which 
was extended to SC/ST Category candidates. Para 19 of the Delhi High 
Court judgment is as follows: 
19. "It will also be relevant to mention that the issue of 
relaxation of marks to PWD people came up for consideration 
before the Supreme Court in W.P. (c) No. 11611998 titled A. I. 
Confederation of Blind & Anr. Vs. U.0.1. & Anr. (decided on 
19.03.2002). It was found therein that the relaxation was given 
to SC and ST candidates to the extent of 5% partially blind/ 
low vision persons in that petition. 
Matter was studied by the Government which filed the counter 
affidavit agreeing to extend the same benefit to visually 
handicapped persons as was enjoyed by SC/ST candidates. 
Jn the order dated 19.3.2002 passed by the Apex Court in the 
said petition, relevant portion of the counter· affidavit was 
extracted since this was the stand of the Union of India in 
that petition, we would like to reproduce the same here as 
under: 
.... .... 3. It is humbly submitted that in pursuance of Section 
32 of the Persons with Disabilities Act(Equal Opportunities, 
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, the 
appropriate
government (Govern111ent of India) has updated 
the list of identified posts. This list has been issued vide 
Extraordinary Gazette Notification No. 178 dated 30.6.2001. 
In this list, the posts of University/College/School Teacher 
for the blind and low-vision have been listed at SI. No. 24-27 
on Page No. 592. 
6. The Chief Commissioner for Person with Disabilities has 
taken cognizance of the arrange111ents provided by the 
University Grants Commission for persons with disabilities 
by way of extending 5% relaxation in cut-of/marks, 
appearing in the NET for Junior Research Fellowship and 
Lectureship. Thus, the arrangement extended by UGC is in 
consonance with the policy stand taken by Govt. of India in 
157 
A 
8 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
158 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R,. 
· so far as relaxation. in minimum standard is concerned." 
Relaxation in standards has been favoured only when the 
candidates· belonging to reserved categories are not available 
on the basis of the general standard to till all the vacai1cies 
reserved/or them. 
· 
7. The. relaxation extended to SC & ST candidates as per 
Maintenance of Standard 1998 of the Universities, provides· 
for a 5% relaxation from 55% to 50% in the marks obtained 
at Master '.s Degree. Since reservation for the disabled is 
called horizontal reservation which cuts across all vertical 
categories such as SC, ST, OBC & General. Therefore, all 
such blind/low-vision persons who belonged to SC, ST vertical 
category would automatically enjoy the benefit of 5% 
relaxation at ,the minimum qualifying marks obtained at 
Master '.s Degree level. Thus, 011/y the blind and low-visio°n 
belonging to OBC & General categories are deprived of the 
relaxation of 5% 'marks at masters' level. 
8. The blind/low-vision and other visually disabled persons 
belonging to SC & ST category are in any case enjoying the 
benefit of 5% relaxation in marks obtained at the masters' 
level for appearing in the NE.T examination conducted by the ·· 
UGC. By extending the same relaxation to particularly blind/ 
low-vision and in general all disabled at par with SC & ST 
disabled would bring parity amongst all persons with 
disabilities irrespective of their
vertical categories. " 
42. Delhi High Court referring to the aforesaid stand of the 
Government of India, had allowed the Writ Petition and held that 5 % 
concession in marks to Physically Handicapped c.andidates as opposed 
to IO% relaxation to SC candidates is discriminatory and the disabled 
candidates were also entitled for the same relaxation i.e. I 0 %. The 
above case was on its own fact. The present case is not a case, wherein 
the respondents who are Physically Handicapped Candidates belonging 
to OBC Category, are claiming any parity with relaxation granted to SC/ 
ST candidates. As noted above, in the Civil Services Examination for 
SC/ST candidates, there is no restriction on the number of attempts. In 
the present case, the respondents have based their claim on the grounds 
that the attempts for Physically Handicapped candidates belonging to 
the General Category, having been increased from 4 to 7, attempts for
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. M. SELVAKUMAR & ANR. 
159 
. [ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.) 
Physically Handicapped of OBC Category, were required to be 
A 
proportionally raised from 7 to 10. Thus the above judgment of Delhi 
High Court has no application in the facts of the present case. 
43. Now coming to the judgment of the Delhi High Court, which 
is under challenge in last two appeals, the Delhi High Court has relied on 
M. Selvakumar's case (supra) of Madras High Court and had relied 
B 
on Paragraph No. 6 & 7 of the said judgment. 
44. Delhi High Court has also relied on its earlier judgment of 
A11amol Bhandari (Supra). Para 11 of the judgment of Delhi High 
Court which is relevant, is as follows: 
"11. This Court is of the opinion that as long as the declaration 
of law in M 8elvakumar (supra) stands· and is not set aside, 
the CAT ought to have follow,ed it. No rule or decision contrary 
to M Selvakumar (Supra) was relied upon by the UPSC. This 
'Court too does not find any reason to differ. from M. 
Selvakumar (Supra). In this context, the reasoning in .Anamol 
(supra) that persons with disability labour under similar and 
identical disadvantages as reserved category (SC/ST) 
personnel is apt. In Anamol (supra), the Court had extensively 
relied on and drawn on empirical data, such as studies and 
officially sponsored research papers, to hold that while 
granting concessions, the equation between persons wiih 
disabilities and SC/ST candidates would be justified and 
called for.
In the present case, the equation which the 
petitioner sought was in the light of the respondents 'decision 
·of 2007 to increase the number of attempts for general 
category disabled candidates by three. The benefit of such 
relief, i.e. increase by three attempts in the case of disabled 
general candidates has resulted in a situation where OBC 
category disabled candidates are also limited to seven 
· attempts. Further, general category candidates, who do not 
suffer from disabilities, are permitted four attempts. In the 
case of SC/ST, there is no restriction in the number of attempts. 
However, in the case of the OBC candidates, the number of 
attempts permitted to both physically fit candidates and those 
with disability is seven. This equation, under the circumstances, 
was held to be discriminatory by M Selvakumar (Supra) which 
directed an increase by three attempts. " 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
160 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
45. As noted, we have already observed that the reasoning given 
by the Madras High Court in M. Selvakumar was unfounded. Once 
the decision of M. Se/vakumar is found to be on erroneous grounds, 
judgment of the Delhi High Court cannot stand. The reliance on A11amol 
Bliandari(supra) by Delhi High Court is also not appropriate as explained 
above. We, therefore, come to the conclusion that the view taken by 
both the Madras High Court and the Delhi High Court that increasing 
the number of attempts for Physically Handicapped candidates belonging 
to General Category from 4 to 7 w.e.f. the 2007 Examination and not 
proportionally increasing the number of attempts for Physically 
Handicapped candidates belonging to OBC Category from 7 to I 0, is 
discriminatory and arbitrary, is unsustainable. 
46. The World Bank Repo11 of May 2007 relied by counsel for 
the respondent is also not relevant for the issue which has come up for 
consideration before us. The World Bank Report which has also been 
referred by the Delhi High Court in its judgment in Anamol (supra) gives 
a detailed figure of different categories of differently-abled persons, 
disability prevalence rate in different countries and different other factors 
which does not throw any light on the issues which are before us. Hence, 
reliance placed on the abovementioned Report is misplaced. 
47. There is one more reason due to which we are unable to
subscribe to the view taken by the Madras High Court and Delhi High 
Court. The horizontal reservation and relaxation for Physically 
Handicapped Category candidates for Civil Services Examination, is a 
matter of Governmental policy and the Government after considering 
the relevant materials have extended relaxation and concessions to the 
Physically Handicapped candidates belonging to the Reserved Category 
as well as General Category. It is not in the domain of the courts to 
embark upon an inquiry as to whether a pa11icular public policy is wise 
and acceptable or whether better policy could be evolved. The Court 
can only interfere ifthe policy framed is absolutely capricious and non-
infonned by reasons, or totally arbitrary, offending the basic requirement 
of the A11icle 14 of the Constitution. 
48. This coui1 in NTR U11iversity of Ilea/tli Sciences, Vijaywada 
versus G Babu Raje11dra Prasad mu/ A11otlier (2003) 5 SCC 350 
has held that how and in what manner reservation is granted, should be 
made a policy matterof decision for State. Such a policy decision normally
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. v. M. SELVAKUMAR & ANR. 
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.] 
would not be challenged. Following has been stated in Para 13 of the 
said judgment: 
"Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India provide for 
enabling provisions. By reason thereof the State would be 
entitled to either adopt a policy decision or make laws 
providing for reservations. How and in what manner the 
reservations should be made is a matter of policy decision of 
the State. Such a policy decision normally would not be open 
to challenge subject to its passing the test of reasonableness 
as also the requirements of the Presidential Order made in 
terms of Article 371-D of the Constitution of India." 
49. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has also relied on the 
Press Note dated 27.04.2007, issued by Government of India. He 
contends that the press note was issued with the object of improving 
access and increasing the representation of physically challenged persons 
in the Civil Services. It is useful to refer to first two paragraphs of Press 
Note, which are to the following effect: 
"To improve access and increase the representation of the 
physically challenged persons in the Civil Services under the 
central government, the government has decided that any 
physically challenged persons, selected 011 the standards as 
applicable to the non-disabled candidate of his category, will 
be counted over and above the quota fixed for physically 
challenged persons. This would be exactly 011 the
lines as it 
happens for SCISTIOBC candidates; 
It has also been decided that the physically challe.nged persons 
belonging to the General Category shall be eligible for seven 
attempts as against existing four attempts. The physically 
challenged persons belonging to the OBC Category and SCI 
ST category would continue to be eligible for seven and 
unlimited attempts respectively. Additional relaxation of I 0 
years in the upper age limit for physically challenged persons 
will be continued. " 
SO. The above note spelled out the objective and policy of the . 
Government of India, to which it is entitled to frame and implement. The 
decision to improve access and increase the representation of the 
physically challenged persons is referred to in the 1st paragraph, as quoted 
161 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H
162 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 4 S.C.R. 
above. The 2nd Paragraph noticed the decision of the Government to 
give 7 attempts to physically challenged persons belonging to General 
Category, as against existing 4 attempts. The Press Note dated 
27.04.2007 thus reflects the policy of the Government and the said policy 
statement in no manner helps the respondent in the present case. 
51. In view of the foregoing discussions, both sets of appeals 
deserve to be allowed. The judgment of the Madras High Court dated 
24.,1.2012 in .M. Selvakumar versus Central Admi11istmtive Tribunal 
a11d Others is set aside and the Writ Petition is dismissed. Similarly, the 
judgment of Delhi High Court dated 13.10.2014 impugned in the last two 
appeals is set aside and the Writ Petition filed by the respondents is 
hereby dismissed. All the appeals are allowed. 
Kalpana K. Tripathy 
Appeals allowed.