W.A. No. 407 of 2025 & batch Page 1 of 20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: AT CUTTACK

W.A. Nos. 407, 406, 387, 394, 400, 401,

402, 403 & 404 of 2025

In W.A No. 407 of 2025

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. and others …. Appellants

-Versus-

Chinmaya Pasayat and others …. Respondents

Advocates appeared in this case:

For Appellants : Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASGI along with

Mr. Soumyajit Pani, Advocate,

Mr. S.D. Das, Senior Advocate along

with Mr. Haripad Mohanty, Advocate

For Respondents : Mr. Santosh Kumar Nanda, Advocate,

In W.A No. 406 of 2025

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. and others …. Appellants

-Versus-

Suvendu Kumar Patro and another …. Respondents

Advocates appeared in this case:

For Appellants : Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASGI along with

Mr. Soumyajit Pani, Advocate,

Mr. S.D. Das, Senior Advocate along

with Mr. Haripad Mohanty, Advocate

For Respondents : Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, Advocate

(Respondent No.1)

Mr. Debasish Satapathy, CGC

(Respondent No.2)

W.A. No. 407 of 2025 & batch Page 2 of 20

In W.A No. 387 of 2025

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. and others …. Appellants

-Versus-

Ratnakar Nayak and another …. Respondents

Advocates appeared in this case:

For Appellants : Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASGI along with

Mr. Soumyajit Pani, Advocate,

Mr. S.D. Das, Senior Advocate along

with Mr. Haripad Mohanty, Advocate

For Respondents : Mr. Biswajit Nayak, Advocate

(Respondent No.1)

Mr. Gopinath Sethi, Sr. Panel Counsel

(Respondent No.2)

In W.A No. 394 of 2025

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. and others …. Appellants

-Versus-

Mukesh Ranjan Gauda and another …. Respondents

Advocates appeared in this case:

For Appellants : Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASGI along with

Mr. Soumyajit Pani, Advocate,

Mr. S.D. Das, Senior Advocate along

with Mr. Haripad Mohanty, Advocate

For Respondents : Mr. S.K. Ojha, Advocate

(Respondent No.1)

Mr. H.S. Panda, CGC

(Respondent No.2)

W.A. No. 407 of 2025 & batch Page 3 of 20

In W.A No. 400 of 2025

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. and others …. Appellants

-Versus-

Manoj Ranjan Khuntia and another …. Respondents

Advocates appeared in this case:

For Appellants : Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASGI along with

Mr. Soumyajit Pani, Advocate,

Mr. S.D. Das, Senior Advocate along

with Mr. Haripad Mohanty, Advocate

For Respondents : Mr. D.P. Dhalsamanta, Advocate

(Respondent No.1)

Mr. D.P. Pattnaik, CGC

(Respondent No.2)

In W.A No. 401 of 2025

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. and others …. Appellants

-Versus-

Antriksh Jha and another …. Respondents

Advocates appeared in this case:

For Appellants : Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASGI along with

Mr. Soumyajit Pani, Advocate,

Mr. S.D. Das, Senior Advocate along

with Mr. Haripad Mohanty, Advocate

For Respondents : Mr. Biswajit Samantray, Advocate

(Respondent No.1)

W.A. No. 407 of 2025 & batch Page 4 of 20

In W.A No. 402 of 2025

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. and others …. Appellants

-Versus-

Sudam Nahak and another …. Respondents

Advocates appeared in this case:

For Appellants : Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASGI along with

Mr. Soumyajit Pani, Advocate,

Mr. S.D. Das, Senior Advocate along

with Mr. Haripad Mohanty, Advocate

For Respondents : Mr. Biswajit Nayak, Advocate

(Respondent No.1)

Mr. Karunakar Nayak,

Sr. Panel Counsel

(Respondent No.2)

In W.A No. 403 of 2025

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. and others …. Appellants

-Versus-

Sunil Kumar Seth and another …. Respondents

Advocates appeared in this case:

For Appellants : Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASGI along with

Mr. Soumyajit Pani, Advocate,

Mr. S.D. Das, Senior Advocate along

with Mr. Haripad Mohanty, Advocate

For Respondents : Mr. Santosh Kumar Nanda, Advocate

(Respondent No.1)

Mr. Gopal Krishna Nayak, CGC

(Respondent No.2)

W.A. No. 407 of 2025 & batch Page 5 of 20

In W.A No. 404 of 2025

Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd. and others …. Appellants

-Versus-

Prabhakar Nayak and another …. Respondents

Advocates appeared in this case:

For Appellants : Mr. K.M. Nataraj, ASGI along with

Mr. Soumyajit Pani, Advocate,

Mr. S.D. Das, Senior Advocate along

with Mr. Haripad Mohanty, Advocate

For Respondents : Mr. Biswajit Nayak, Advocate

(Respondent No.1)

CORAM:

HON’ BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

J U D G M E N T

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of hearing : 6

th

November, 2025

Date of Judgment : 28

th

January, 2026

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HARISH TANDON, CJ.

1. The batch of writ appeals filed by the appellants are

taken up analogously as the challenges made to a judgment dated

17.12.2024 passed by the Single Bench disposing of several writ

petitions (W.P.(C) Nos. 459 of 2016, 6592 of 2016, 22915 of

W.A. No. 407 of 2025 & batch Page 6 of 20

2015, 23063 of 2015, 18652 of 2016, 15241 of 2016, 23061 of 2015,

568 of 2016 & 22914 of 2015, vide order dated 17.12.2024) involving

the common issue. It would invite the repetition of facts which are

identical in nature and, therefore, in order to avoid the prolixity of

repetitions, the salient features which appear to us common in all cases

are succinctly narrated in order to address the issues raised in the

instant appeals.

2. An employment notice under reference No, MCL/ MP&R/

Recruitment/2014/166 dated 19.02.2014 was published in Odia and

English daily newspapers for inviting applications from the Indian

nationals to fill up the specified vacancies arisen in Security Guard

T&S Grade G earmarking a total number of vacancies to 303, out of

which 43 posts were reserved for SC, 66 for ST, 36 for OBC and 158

for general candidates. It was also expressly indicated in the said

advertisement that the reservation shall also be provided for

Handicapped and Ex-Servicemen in terms of the rules/guidelines

issued by the Government of India. The recruitment process was

divided into two parts, namely written test and interview with the rider

that the candidates shortlisted in the written test shall only be allowed

W.A. No. 407 of 2025 & batch Page 7 of 20

to appear for interview. The age limit for different categories was also

provided in the said advertisement for different categories of the

persons subject to production of the relevant documents in proof

thereof. 25219 numbers of applications were received and admittedly

all the respondents in the batch of writ appeals applied for the said

post in different categories and were permitted to appear in the written

test held on 21.12.2014. All the respondents qualified in the written

test and they were called for the interview and thereafter a final merit

list was published where their names were not included therein. All

the respondents challenged the process of the recruitment, more

particularly after noticing the Note No.2 appended to the said select

list wherein it was stated that the reservation for Ex-Servicemen has

been applied in terms of the Government of India Guidelines and

earmarked 24.5 % reservations. The challenge was further founded

upon in creating a vertical reservation to Ex-Servicemen instead of

horizontal reservation as such exercise resulted into the total

reservation exceeding 50%, which is impermissible in law, more

particularly the judgment of the constitution bench of the Apex Court

rendered in Indira Sawhney v. Union of India reported in (2000) 1

SCC 168.

W.A. No. 407 of 2025 & batch Page 8 of 20

3. On the conspectus of the aforesaid facts and having found a

prima facie case is made out, the writ petitions filed by respective

respondents in the batch of aforementioned appeals were admitted and

the appellants were called upon to file affidavit disclosing their stand

to the contentions raised in the respective writ petitions. The gist of the

stand taken by the appellants before the writ court was primarily based

upon an assertion that the said advertisement widely published in the

newspapers includes a provision for 24.5 % reservation for Ex-

Servicemen in terms of the circular dated 04.06.2014 issued by the

Ministry of Defence and all the writ petitioners being aware of the

same participated in the selection process without any demur and,

therefore, are precluded from challenging the validity of the said

selection procedure. The appellants took the further stand that mere

omission to provide details of the reservation being inconsequential

cannot vitiate the entire selection process. In addition to the above, on

factual matrix, a specific stand was taken by the appellants that since

the writ petitioners could not secure the cutoff marks earmarked for

different categories, they cannot take a rebound and challenge the

selection process.

W.A. No. 407 of 2025 & batch Page 9 of 20

4. On the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the Single Bench

disposed of the batch of writ petitions with the categorical finding that

the circular dated 04.06.2014 issued by the Ministry of Defence

mandating 24.5 % reservation for the Ex-Servicemen, constitute a

special character which is fundamentally distinct from the social

reservation ordained in the Constitution of India. This is primarily

aimed to address the historical injustice and disadvantages suffered by

the distinct class of persons. It is further held that the decision to

provide reservation to Ex-Servicemen is to honour the benefit to those

classes of persons who have served the nation and, therefore, such

reservation should be applied on a horizontal basis and not on vertical

basis. The Single Bench took note of various judgments of the apex

court, more particularly, rendered in the case Anil Kumar Gupta v.

State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in 1995 (5) SCC 173, Rajesh Kumar

Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, reported in (2007) 8

SCC 785, Saurav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2021)

4 SCC 542 and held that horizontal reservation, in reality, aimed to

cut across vertical reservation to accommodate the Ex-Servicemen

within their vertical categories, i.e. General, SC, ST and OBC without

disturbing the basic fabric of reservation structure. It is further held

W.A. No. 407 of 2025 & batch Page 10 of 20

that the Ex-Servicemen candidates of different categories have been

adjusted in the general category not on the basis of merit as the cut-off

marks earmarked for such Ex-Servicemen were much below the other

candidates of the general category, which leads to an inescapable

conclusion that the appellants applied Ex-Servicemen category on a

vertical basis and not on horizontal basis. Ultimately the Single Bench

disposed of the writ petitions with the following directions:-

―26. Based on the aforementioned analysis of both

factual and legal aspects, it is hereby directed that

the candidature of the petitioners shall be

reconsidered in a fresh recruitment exercise.

27. The said process shall be conducted without

displacing or jeopardizing the appointments of Ex-

Servicemen who were erroneously appointed by the

Opposite Party against these posts. Such

appointments of the Ex-Servicemen shall be

regularized by creating supernumerary posts. The

petitioners, upon their appointment pursuant to this

order, shall be accorded seniority over those Ex-

Servicemen occupying the supernumerary posts.

28. The entire exercise shall be completed

expeditiously and in accordance with rules of

recruitment.‖

5. Mr. Nataraj, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing

for the appellants fairly conceded that a gross mistake has been

W.A. No. 407 of 2025 & batch Page 11 of 20

committed in providing a vertical reservation for the Ex-Servicemen

which ought to be done on horizontal basis and, therefore, the

proposition of law laid down in the impugned judgment rendered by

the Single Bench cannot be faulted with. He fairly submitted that 74

posts of general category which constitute 24.5 % of the entire

vacancy earmarked for said category were filled up with the Ex-

Servicemen candidates and the rest were offered to non Ex-

Servicemen which manifestly indicate the vertical reservation, which

is a mistake committed by the appellants. He further submitted that

several candidates who were offered the post as their names were

included in the final select list did not join. As a resultant effect, it

remained unfilled and, therefore, some of the writ petitions/

respondents can be accommodated. Learned Additional Solicitor

General submitted a chart depicting the vacancies which were unfilled

and fairly conceded that only three writ petitioners/respondents can at

best be accommodated having secured the cutoff marks in the left out

vacancies. He fervently submitted that the Ex-Servicemen candidates

who have already joined and are discharging their duties for such a

long time cannot be thrown out of the employment as it would invite

anomalous situation.

W.A. No. 407 of 2025 & batch Page 12 of 20

6. On the other hand, the counsel representing the respective

writ petitioners/respondents in the batch of the writ appeals refuted the

contention of learned Additional Solicitor General, precisely on the

stand that only three of the writ petitioners at best can be given

appointment, when the number of unfilled vacancies exceeds the

number of writ petitioners/respondents and, therefore, those can be

accommodated without disturbing the appointment of the Ex-

Servicemen. All the counsel appearing for the respective writ

petitioners/respondents echoed that the judgment of the Single Bench

does not invite interference as the entire process of selection is

undisputedly contrary to the principles of reservation, more

particularly when the reservation for Ex-Servicemen is applied on

vertical basis and not on horizontal basis. Lastly it is submitted that

since 65 vacancies remained unfilled, the writ petitioners/respondents

can be accommodated, which would not be illegal as the other

candidates who did not approach the court challenging the process of

selection are not entitled to any equity as the fence-sitters shall not be

permitted to claim any benefit of the judgment rendered in case of

similarly situated persons having acquiesced their right in this regard.

W.A. No. 407 of 2025 & batch Page 13 of 20

7. The fulcrum of the entire arguments as narrated

hereinabove are not pointer to the issue pertaining to vertical

reservation for the Ex-Servicemen which ought to have been done in

horizontal manner in terms of the circular dated 04.06.2014 issued by

the Ministry of Defence, which has been decided by the Single Bench,

but is centred around the eligibility of some of the writ petitioners,

who may or may not come within the zone of appointment. The

nuances of horizontal reservation and vertical reservation have been

succinctly explained in the Constitution Bench decision rendered in

the case of Indira Sawhney (supra), wherein it is held that horizontal

reservations in effect cut across the vertical reservations and,

therefore, is known in the legal parlance as interlocking reservation in

the following:

―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 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

W.A. No. 407 of 2025 & batch Page 14 of 20

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.‖

8. In Anil Kumar Gupta (supra), after the initial notification

for filling up the posts in all the medical colleges, a corrigendum was

issued that the horizontal reservation be granted to all medical colleges

of the total seats of all the courses, which was sought to be interpreted

in different ways by the parties. The Government was found to have

blurred the distinction between overall horizontal reservation and

compartmentalised horizontal reservation, which resulted into

deprivation of many eligible candidates and in order to resolve such

aspect, the apex Court held:

―17. It would have been better and the respondents

may note this for their future guidance that while

providing horizontal reservations, they should specify

whether the horizontal reservation is a

W.A. No. 407 of 2025 & batch Page 15 of 20

compartmental one or an overall one. As a matter of

fact, it may not be totally correct to presume that the

Uttar Pradesh Government was not aware of this

distinction between "overall horizontal reservation"

and "compartmentalised horizontal reservation",

since it appears from the judgment in Swati Gupta

that in the first notification issued by the Government

of Uttar Pradesh on May 17, 1994, the thirty per cent

reservation for ladies was split up into each of the

other reservations. For example, it was stated

against backward classes that the percentage of

reservation in their favour was twenty seven per cent

but at the same time it was stated that thirty per cent

of those seats were reserved for ladies. Against every

vertical reservation, a similar provision was made,

which meant that the said horizontal reservation in

favour of ladies was to be a "compartmentalised

horizontal reservation". we are of the opinion that in

the interest of avoiding any complications and

intractable problems, it would be better that in future

the horizontal reservations are compartmentalised in

the sense explained above. In other words, the

notification inviting applications should itself state

not only the percentage of horizontal reservation(s)

but should also specify the number of seats reserved

for them in each of the social reservation categories,

viz., ST., S.C., O.B.C. and O.C. If this is not done

there is always a possibility of one or the other

vertical reservation category suffering prejudice as

has happened in this case. As pointed out

hereinabove, 110 seats out of 112 seats meant for

special reservations have been taken away from the

O.C. category alone and none from the O.B.C. or for

that matter, from S.C. or S.T. It can well happen the

other way also in a given year.‖

W.A. No. 407 of 2025 & batch Page 16 of 20

9. The apex Court in Saurav Yadav (supra) was considering a

question whether the state has committed an error in not considering

the claim of OBC-female and SC-female candidates against the post

meant for the general female candidates on the basis of the merit and

held:

―22. ……..

13. There cannot be any dispute with the

proposition that if a candidate is entitled to be

admitted on the basis of his own merit then such

admission should not be counted against the quota

reserved for Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe

or any other reserved category since that will be

against the constitutional mandate enshrined

in Article 16(4).‖

44. Having come to the conclusion that the Appellant

No.1 and similarly situated candidates had secured more

marks than the last candidates selected in ‗Open/General

Category‘, the logical consequence must be to annul said

selection and direct the authorities to do the exercise de

novo in the light of conclusions arrived at by us.

However, considering the facts that those selected

candidates have actually undergone training and are

presently in employment and that there are adequate

number of vacancies available, we mould the relief and

direct as under:-

44.1 All candidates coming from ‗OBC Female

Category‘ who had secured more marks than

274.8928, i.e. the marks secured by the last candidate

appointed in ‗General Category–Female‘ must be

offered employment as Constables in Uttar Pradesh

Police.

W.A. No. 407 of 2025 & batch Page 17 of 20

44.2 Appropriate letters in that behalf shall be

sent to the concerned candidates within four weeks.

44.3 If the concerned candidates exercise their

option and accept the offer of employment,

communications in that behalf shall be sent by the

concerned candidates within two weeks.

44.4 On receipt of such acceptance, the codal

and other formalities shall be completed within three

weeks.

44.5 Letters of appointment shall thereafter be

issued within a week and the concerned candidates

shall be given appropriate postings.

44.6 For all purposes, including seniority, pay

fixation and other issues, the employment of such

candidates shall be reckoned from the date the

appointment orders are issued.

44.7 The employment of General Category

Females with cut off at 274.8928 as indicated by the

State Government in its affidavits referred to in

paragraphs 5 and 8 hereinabove are not to be

affected in any manner merely because of this

judgment.‖

10. The bench in case of Saurav Yadav (supra) also took note

of the earlier judgment of the apex Court rendered in Rajesh Kumar

Daria (supra), wherein it was observed:

9. …Social reservations in favour of SC, ST and OBC

under Article 16(4) are ―vertical reservations‖.

Special reservations in favour of physically

handicapped, women, etc./ under Articles 16(1) or

15(3) are ―horizontal reservations‖. Where a

vertical reservation is made in favour of a Backward

W.A. No. 407 of 2025 & batch Page 18 of 20

Class under Article 16(4), the candidates belonging

to such Backward Class, may compete for non-

reserved posts and if they are appointed to the non

reserved posts on their own merit, their number will

not be counted against the quota reserved for

respective Backward Class. Therefore, if the number

of SC candidates, who by their own merit, get

selected to open competition vacancies, equals or

even exceeds the percentage of posts reserved for SC

candidates, it cannot be said that the reservation

quota for SCs has been filled. The entire reservation

quota will be intact and available in addition to those

selected under open competition category. (Vide

Indra Sawhney [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC

(L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385] , R.K.

Sabharwal v. State of Punjab [(1995) 2 SCC 745 :

1995 SCC (L&S) 548 : (1995) 29 ATC 481] , Union

of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan [(1995) 6 SCC 684

: 1996 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1995) 31 ATC 813] and

Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul [(1996) 3 SCC 253]

.) But the aforesaid principle applicable to vertical

(social) reservations will not apply to horizontal

(special) reservations. Where a special reservation

for women is provided within the social reservation

for Scheduled Castes, the proper procedure is first to

fill up the quota for Scheduled Castes in order of

merit and then find out the number of candidates

among them who belong to the special reservation

group of ―Scheduled Caste women‖. If the number of

women in such list is equal to or more than the

number of special reservation quota, then there is no

need for further selection towards the special

reservation quota. Only if there is any shortfall, the

requisite number of Scheduled Caste women shall

have to be taken by deleting the corresponding

number of candidates from the bottom of the list

relating to Scheduled Castes. To this extent,

horizontal (special) reservation differs from vertical

(social) reservation. Thus women selected on merit

W.A. No. 407 of 2025 & batch Page 19 of 20

within the vertical reservation quota will be counted

against the horizontal reservation for women.‖

11. The law enunciated in the above reports have uniformly

held that applying the principles of horizontal reservation, the

intention is to cut across the vertical reservation and, therefore, the

reservation for Ex-Servicemen cannot be done in a vertical manner,

but should be adjusted in the respective category of the vertical

reservation without disturbing the fabric of the reservation structure.

Even Rule-3 of the Ex-Servicemen (Re-employment in Central Civil

Services and Posts) Rules, 1979 is also indicative of the fact that the

selection of Ex-Servicemen should be done in the vacancies

earmarked for the vertical categories except when they secure higher

marks on merit. It is undisputed in the instant case that the appellants

have lowered down the cut-off mark for ESM-General candidates at

31.5 whereas fixed the cut off mark for other candidates of general

category at 42.5. Such exercise is galore and leads to an inescapable

conclusion that those Ex-Servicemen have been put on the basis of

vertical reservation undermining the merit in a particular category.

12. More than a decade has elapsed as the issues were travelling

in the peripheral of the docket of the Court and it would be true too

W.A. No. 407 of 2025 & batch Page 20 of 20

harsh at this juncture to disturb their appointments as some of them

would be out of the zone of the appointment.

13. We do not find any incongruity, infirmity and/or illegality

in the ultimate direction passed by the Single Bench taking a holistic

approach in passing a direction keeping in mind that those Ex-

Servicemen candidates who have already been appointed should not

be thrown out of such appointment. Apart from the above, the unfilled

vacancies are more than the writ petitioners who have timely

approached the Court flagging an issue and, therefore, the appellants

would take the above aspects into account and will undertake the

exercise as directed by the Single Bench.

14. We, thus, do not find any infirmity in the decision of the

Single Bench. The writ appeals are devoid of merit and accordingly

dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, is disposed of. No cost.

(Harish Tandon)

Chief Justice

(M. S. Raman)

Judge

Arun Mishra