Patna High Court
Prakash KumarversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
- Bench
- HARISH KUMAR
Holding
The Court held that non‑resident disabled candidates may be placed in the open category and counted against the horizontal reservation, as the governing resolution permits merit‑based selection irrespective of domicile.
Summary
A batch of disabled‑quota candidates domiciled in Bihar applied for teacher posts under Advertisement No. 22/2024 and were denied the 4 % horizontal reservation, which was instead granted to similarly disabled candidates from outside Bihar. The petitioners sought a writ to quash the result and to compel the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) to award the reservation only to Bihar residents, relying on the Bihar Reservation Act, 2003 and various government resolutions. The State and BPSC contended that the non‑resident disabled candidates were placed in the unreserved category, consistent with Resolution No. 962 (22‑01‑2021) issued under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. The Court examined Supreme Court precedents on horizontal reservation and the principle that merit‑based selection in the open category cannot be barred by reservation quotas. It held that the resolution expressly permits disabled candidates, irrespective of domicile, to compete for the open category and be counted against the horizontal reservation if they meet the merit cut‑off, and that domicile is a condition only for reservation benefits, not for open‑category selection. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Issues considered
- The applicability of Bihar’s domicile‑based reservation rule to disabled candidates under horizontal reservation.
- Whether non‑resident disabled candidates can be allotted seats under the 4 % horizontal reservation for teachers.
- Interpretation of Resolution No. 962 (22‑01‑2021) and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in the context of the Bihar Reservation Act, 2003.
Legislation cited
- Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 — s. 32, 34
Subjects
- horizontal reservation
- disabled quota
- domicile requirement
- Bihar Public Service Commission
- Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act
- Bihar Reservation Act
- open category merit
- government resolution
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6378 of 2025
======================================================
1. Prakash Kumar S/O- Niwas Pandit, Resident of Village- Khirnia, P.O.-
Balha Bazar, P.S.- Mansi, District- Khagaria.
2. Dharmendra Kumar Dhiraj S/O- Lakshmi Narayan Singh Resident of
Village- Neyamatpur Tola Banwariganj, P.O.- Patharktti, P.S.- Sarbahda,
District- Gaya.
3. Sanjeev Kumar, S/O- Shambhu Yadav Resident of Village- Shivnagar Parria
Ward no-2, P.O.- Rampatti, P.S.- Kumarkhand, District- Madhepura.
4. Om Prakash Pandey S/O- Bhola Nath Pandey Resident of Village and P.O.-
Bihta, P.S.- Bihta, District- Patna.
5. Srikanti Kumari, D/O- Bhaiyaram Singh Resident of Village-P.O.- Kelar,
P.S.- Kelar, District- Arwal.
6. Preeti Kumari D/O- Kishor Kumar Resident of Village- Matadih Chowk,
P.O.- Jamalpur, P.S.- Dharahara, District- Munger.
7. Arvind Kumar S/O- Bhupendra Yadav Resident of Village- Bancholaha,
P.O.- Khajuri, P.S.- Sourbazar, District- Saharsa.
8. Tripti Kumari D/O- Subhash Chandra Sah, Resident of Village- Arya Nagar
Hat, P.O.- Kasba, P.S.- Kasba, District- Purnea.
9. Ravi Prakash Pandey S/O- Satya Narayan Pandey, Resident of Village-P.O.-
Banuchhapar, P.S.- Banuchhapar, District- West Champaran.
10. Suman Kumar S/O- Shyam Sundar P.O.tdar, Resident of Village- Station
Road, Gudri Bazar, P.O.- Kasba, P.S.- Kasba, District- Purnia.
11. Md Wahabuddin S/O- Md Bashiruddin Resident of Village- Dadhi Badhi,
P.O.- Baniyarpur, P.S.- Baniyarpur, District- Saran.
12. Sushant Kumar S/O- Arun Kumar Chaudhary Resident of Village-P.O.-
Bijhrauli, P.S.- Tisiauta, District- Vaishali.
13. Mukund Madhav, S/O- Shakti Nandan Kumar Resident of Village-
Shambhunathpur Dholi, P.O.- T.C.A Dholi, P.S.-Sakra, District-
Muzaffarpur.
14. Manish Kumar S/O- Anil Ray Resident of Village- Mattunaroi, P.O.- Sanha,
P.S.- Sahebpur Kamal, District- Begusarai.
15. Chintu Kumar Paswan S/O- Bangali Paswan Resident of Village- Tikuli,
P.O.-Chakand, P.S.- Belaganj, District- Gaya.
16. Deepak Kumar S/O- Shiv Shankar Singh Resident of Village- Purani Shahar
Barbigha, P.O.- Barbigha, P.S.- Barbigha, District- Sheikhpura.
17. Deepak Kumar S/O- Satyendra Prasad Resident of Village-P.O.- Aima
Chauki, P.S.- Khizersarai, District- Gaya.
18. Sudhanshu Raj, S/O-Kishori Mohan Prasad Address - Vill and P.O. and P.S. -
Pakri Barawan, District-Nawada, 805124.
19. Nitish Kumar, S/O- Mahendra Prasad Singh, Resident of Village- Jhikuli,
P.O.- Sangrampur P.S.- Sangrampur, District- Munger.
20. Amisha Kumari , D/O- Shailendra Prasad, Resident of Village- Mai, P.O.-
Patna High Court CWJC No.6378 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
2/24
Parwalpur, P.S.- Parwalpur, District-Nalanda
21. Jamil Ansari S/O- Salauddin Ansari Resident of Village- Arsi Kala, P.O.-
Dubba, P.S.- Gurua, District-Gaya.
22. Suruchi Kumari, D/O- Bhola Prasad Keshri, Resident of Village and P.O.-
Balthari, P.S.- Kochas, District- Rohtas.
23. Ankit Kumar Suman S/O- Shyamsundar Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village-
Rampur, P.O.- Jamdaha, P.S.- Katoriya District- Banka.
24. Binod Yadav S/O- Sakun Yadav Resident of Village- Koriya, P.O.- Lohari,
P.S.- Chandan, District- Banka.
25. Shesh Nath Sah S/O- Ramayan Sah Resident of Village- Sirisiya Babutola,
P.O.- Sasamusa, P.S.- Kuchaiot, District- Gopalganj.
26. Priyanshu Kumar, S/O- Shashi Bhushan Prasad Resident of Village and
P.O.- Hathwan, P.S.- Alauli, District- Khagaria.
27. Sushil Kumar S/O- Brahmadeo Yadav Resident of Village- Kadhaiya, P.O.-
Kachra, P.S.- Saurbazar, District- Saharsa.
28. Ranjan Kumar S/O- Kailash Yadav Resident of Village- Karma Masud, P.O.-
Rafiganj, P.S.- Rafiganj, District- Aurangabad.
29. Ashish Kumar, S/O- Kamlesh Sah Resident of Village- Dahala, P.O.-
Durgawati, P.S.- Durgawati, District- Kaimur.
30. Abdul Rasid, S/O- Md Abuzar Resident of Village- Shivnagar Harishpur,
P.O.- Dighree, P.S.- Rautara, District- Katihar.
31. Mahesh Kumar Sah S/O- Ram Babu Sah Resident of Village-P.O.- Bandra,
P.S.- Piar, District- Muzaffarpur.
32. Anju Kumari D/O- Surendra Chaudhary Resident of Village- Dighi, P.O.-
Bathnaha, P.S.- Bathnaha, District- Sitamarhi.
33. Anil Kumar Yadav S/O- Gorakh Nath Yadav Resident of Village- Chhotka
Manjha Dakshintola, P.O.- Chhotka Manjha, P.S.- Mairwa, District- Siwan.
34. Jitendra Kumar S/O- Yugal yadav Resident of Village- Siraiya, P.O.-
Sahebpur Kamal, P.S.- Sahebpur Kamal, District- Begusarai.
35. Kundan Kumar Singh S/O- Gajadhar Prasad Singh Resident of Village-P.O.-
Pasraha, P.S.- Pasraha, District- Khagaria.
36. Raju Kumar S/O- Sukhdeo Prasad Yadav Resident of Village- Chiraiyantard,
P.O.- Rampur, P.S.- Rampur, District- Gaya.
37. Sudhir Kumar, S/O- Nawal Kishor Singh Resident of Village- Gauchari,
P.O.- Purainia, P.S.- Balthar, District- West Champaran.
38. Mantu Kumar Ram S/O- Sudarshan Ram, Resident of Village- Mendaripur,
P.O.- Silari, P.S.- Karghar, District- Rohtas.
39. Sintu Kumar S/O- Janardan Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village- Belahi Ward
No-7, P.O.- Makuna, P.S.- Bihra, District- Saharsa.
40. Sanoj Kumar pandit, S/O- Jalo pandit, Resident of Village-Kharik Purvi
Gharari, P.O.- Kharik Bazar, P.S.- Kharik, District- Bhagalpur.
41. Manprit Kumari D/O- Tribhuvan Roy Resident of Village- Dhangama Ward
No.-03, P.O.- Rautara, P.S.- Ranipatra, District- Purnia.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6378 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
3/24
42. Anurag Kumar, S/O- Amresh Singh Resident of Village - P.O.- Singari, P.S.-
Garhwa, District- Pashchim Champaran.
43. Alpna Kumari D/O- Nalini Kumar Das Resident of Village-P.O.- Telta, P.S.-
Balrampur, District- Katihar.
44. Munna Kumar S/O- Kaleshwar Mandal Resident of Village- Kala Tola, P.O.-
Bariyarpur, P.S.- Bariyarpur, District- Munger.
45. Asmeena Khatoon D/O- Mustafa Resident of Village- Chapakhor, P.O.- Hat
Balrampur, P.S.- Abadpur, District- Katihar.
46. Sunil Kumar S/O- Ram Prawesh Prasad Resident of Village- Pathra, P.O.-
Manjhagarh, P.S.- Manjhagarh, District- Gopalganj.
47. Prabhash Kumar Son of Manbodh Prasad Yadav Resident of Village-
Parihari, P.O.- Shripur Millik, P.S.- Kumarkhand, District- Madhepura.
48. Md Jahangir Alam S/O- Md Mojib Resident of Village- Kochka, P.O.-
Machhatta, P.S.- Amour, District- Purnia.
49. Manish Kumar Singh S/O- Dinesh Singh Resident of Village-P.O.-
Pachgachia, P.S.- Gopalpur, District- Bhagalpur.
50. Chandan Kumar S/O- Wakil Yadav Resident of Village- Chorakol, P.O.-
Domuhan, P.S.- Banka, District- Banka.
51. Manilal Kumar S/O- Babujan Mahto Resident of Village- Mirzapur, P.O.-
Hussaina, P.S.- Ballia, District- Begusarai.
52. Vikash Kumar, S/O- Jagdam Mistri Resident of Village- Lahangpur, P.O.-
Lakhaipur, P.S.- Mohanpur, District- Gaya.
53. Uday Kumar S/O- Sahdeo Ray Resident of Village- Rukmanjri, P.O.-
Rusulpur Korigawn, P.S.- Goraul, District- Vaishali.
54. Om Prakash Kumar son of Chandrama Roy Resident of Village-Mahana,
Post- Saghat Sultanpur, Bansohi, P.S.-Bhagwanpur Hatt, District-Siwan
55. Md. Meraz son of Md. Zakir Resident of Village - Loam, Post- Loam P.S.-
Sadar, District-Darbhanga
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Old Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna-800015.
2. The Secretary, Education Department, Old Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna-
800015.
3. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government
of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director, Secondary Education, Education Department, Old Secretariat,
Bailey Road, Patna-800015.
5. The Bihar Public Service Commission, 15 Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey
Road, Patna.
6. The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15 Jawahar Lal Nehru
Marg, Bailey Road, Patna.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6378 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
4/24
7. The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15 Jawahar Lal Nehru
Marg, Bailey Road, Patna.
8. The Joint Secretary -cum- Examination Controller, Bihar Public Service
Commission, 15 Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna.
9. Sushil Yadav son of not know bearing Roll no. 743374 under OH category
(UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
10. Mohd. Asim son of not know bearing Roll no. 743397 under OH category
(UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission
11. Saloni Gupta daughter of not know bearing Roll no. 743408 under OH
category (UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
12. Vikash Kumar son of not know bearing Roll no. 743421 under OH category
(UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission
13. Jitendra Kumar Sahni son of not know bearing Roll no. 743427 under OH
category (UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
14. Ajeet Singh, son of not know, bearing Roll no. 743452 under OH category
(UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
15. Raghvendra Mishra son of not know bearing Roll no. 743460 under OH
category (UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
16. Satyendra Kumar Tripathi son of not know bearing Roll no. 743471 under
OH category (UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
17. Lalit Mohan Sonkar son of not know bearing Roll no. 743476 under OH
category (UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission
18. Santosh Kumar son of not know bearing Roll no. 798530 under OH category
(UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
19. Pradeep Pal son of not know bearing Roll no. 798588 under OH category
(UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission
20. Rajneesh Kumar son of not know bearing Roll no. 798604 under OH
category (UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
21. Vinay Tiwari son of not know bearing Roll no. 798624 under OH category
(UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission
22. Gulshan Kumar, son of not know, bearing Roll no. 798636 under OH
category (UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
23. Jeetesh Kumar son of not know, bearing Roll no. 798655 under OH category
(UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
24. Sandhya Devi daughter of not know bearing Roll no. 798658 under OH
category (UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
25. Sarva Jeet Kumar son of not know bearing Roll no. 825741 under OH
category (UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
26. Ankula Singh daughter of not know bearing Roll no. 825749 under OH
category (UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
27. Rahul, son of not know bearing Roll no. 825753 under OH category (UP)
through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
28. Dalchand Singh son of not know bearing Roll no. 825754 under OH
Patna High Court CWJC No.6378 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
5/24
category (UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
29. Anupam Yadav son of not know, bearing Roll no. 825781 under OH
category (UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
30. Ram Pratap Singh son of not know bearing Roll no. 825789 under OH
category (UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
31. Ambesh Kumar son of not know bearing Roll no. 825794 under OH
category (UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
32. Manish Rai, son of not know bearing Roll no. 825801 under OH category
(UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
33. Deepak Kumar Pal, son of not know bearing Roll no. 825829 under OH
category (UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
34. Bhanu Pratap son of not know bearing Roll no. 825850 under OH category
(UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
35. Ajeet Kumar son of not know bearing Roll no. 825884 under OH category
(UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
36. Dharmoo Prajapati son of not know bearing Roll no. 825892 under OH
category (UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
37. Yogesh Kumar, son of not know bearing Roll no. 825895 under OH category
(UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
38. Kamalkant son of not know bearing Roll no. 827251 under OH category
(UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission
39. Neetu, daughter of not know, bearing Roll no. 827251 under OH category
(UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
40. Jai Kishor son of not know bearing Roll no. 827324 under OH category
(UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
41. Afaque Ahmad son of not know bearing Roll no. 835715 under OH category
(UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission
42. Vinod Kumar Yadav son of not know bearing Roll no. 835781 under OH
category (UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
43. Prem Ji Dwivedi, son of not know, bearing Roll no. 835798 under OH
category (UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
44. Ramesh Chandra son of not know bearing Roll no. 835803 under OH
category (UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
45. Pushpendra Kumar son of not know bearing Roll no. 835811 under OH
category (UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
46. Nagendra Singh, son of not know, bearing Roll no. 835827 under OH
category (UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
47. Ram Sharan Saroj, son of not know, bearing Roll no. 835840 under OH
category (UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
48. Tiwari Kumari Priyanka Kashinath, daughter of not know, bearing Roll no.
835863 under OH category (UP) through the Bihar Public Service
Commission.
49. Basudev, son of not know, bearing Roll no. 836744 under OH category (MP)
Patna High Court CWJC No.6378 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
6/24
through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
50. Rohit Kumar, son of not know, bearing Roll no. 836745 under OH category
(UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
51. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, son of not know, bearing Roll no. 836834 under OH
category (MP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
52. Raghbendra Singh Bhadoriya son of not know bearing Roll no. 836847
under OH category (MP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
53. Ghanshyam Sharma son of not know bearing Roll no. 836855 under OH
category (MP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
54. Mukesh Kumar Khokhar son of not know bearing Roll no. 836861 under
OH category (Rajasthan) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
55. Kanhaia Lal Shaw, son of not know, bearing Roll no. 836906 under OH
category (WB) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
56. Sonu Singh, son of not know, bearing Roll no. 836785 under DD category
(Rajasthan) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
57. Jeetendra Kumar, son of not know, bearing Roll no. 836875 under DD
category (Rajasthan) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
58. Mohammad Abbas, son of not know, bearing Roll no. 836886 under DD
category (Delhi) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
59. Neeraj Singh son of not know bearing Roll no. 539395 under VI category
(UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
60. Jitendra Kumar Singh son of not know bearing Roll no. 825847 under VI
category (UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
61. Rahul Kumar son of not know bearing Roll no. 836879 under VI category
(UP) through the Bihar Public Service Commission.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ashish Giri, Adv.
Mr.Pranav Kumar, Adv.
Ms. Shrishti Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Mankeshwar Tiwari, AC to AAG 3
For the BPSC : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Adv.
Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Adv.
=======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 27-01-2026
Heard Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Advocate with Mr.
Pranav Kumar, learned Advocate for the petitioners, Mr. Sanjay
Pandey, learned Advocate for the Bihar Public Service
Patna High Court CWJC No.6378 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
7/24
Commission and learned Advocate for the State.
2. This Batch of the writ petitioners are unsuccessful
candidates under the disabled quota in connection with
Advertisement No. 22/2024; who are seeking following reliefs:-
“(i) To issue an appropriate writ, order, direction
in the nature certiorari for quashing the part of
final result dated 15.11.20 of TRE-III published by
the respondent Bihar Public Servi Commission
through advertisement no. 22/2024 with respect the
disabled quota candidates of OH (Orthopaedic), VI
(Visuall impaired) & DD (Deaf & Dumb) for
appointment to the post Teachers under all the
categories (Annexure-P/5, Pg125).
(ii) To issue an appropriate writ, order, direction in
the nature mandamus commanding the respondent
Bihar Public Service Commission to publish a
fresh result after giving the benefit reservation of
disabled quota to the candidates belonging to the
State of Bihar, and not to consider the candidature
of disabled quota candidates from outside the state
of Bihar be considered against unreserved
category against advertisement no. 22/2024.
(iii) To issue an appropriate writ, order, direction
in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent Bihar Public Service Commission to
grant benefit of disabled quota to the candidates
belonging to the State of Bihar and not to the
candidates who are not resident (domicile) of
Bihar against advertisement no. 22/2024.
(iv) To issue an appropriate writ, order, direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent Bihar Public Service Commission to
publish a fresh result after strictly implementing
Patna High Court CWJC No.6378 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
8/24
the procedure as prescribed in resolution no.
20150 dated 15.11.2022 and letter no. 2701 dated
13.02.2024 issued under the signature of the
Additional Chief Secretary, General Administration
Department in relation to allowing the benefit of
disabled quota only to the candidates who are
residents (domicile) of Bihar, and not to grant
benefit of reservation to the candidate who are
non-residents of Bihar under disabled quota
(unreserved category) against advertisement no.
22/2024.
(v) To issue an appropriate writ, order, direction in
the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondent Bihar Public Service Commission to
publish the result of disabled quota only with
respect to the candidates who are the residents
(domicile) of Bihar in terms of Bihar Reservation
Act, 1991 and resolution 20150 dated 15.11.2022
and letter no. 2701 dated 13.02.2024 against
advertisement no. 22/2024.
(vi) To any other reliefs for which the petitioners
appear to be found entitled to the Ho’ble Court.”
3. The petitioners, who belong to disabled quota
having their domicile in the State of Bihar, after completing
their training and possessing CTET and STET certificates, on
being found eligible for appointment to the post of Primary,
Secondary and Higher Secondary Teachers, applied in terms
with the caption Advertisement No. 22/2024. Clause 6(iv)(A) of
the Advertisement prescribes horizontal reservation to the
disabled candidates in terms of notification No. 962 dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.6378 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
9/24
22.01.2021 and Clause 6(vii) and its “Note” further states that
only such disability certificate will be considered, which are
issued by the Government Hospital of Bihar and in case
document is found forged, the candidature will be cancelled. It
further says that if the disability certificate is issued by the Civil
Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, the candidature shall be
deemed to be provisional and the candidates are mandatorily
required to submit disability certificate duly issued by the
Government Medical College and Hospital before selection.
4. Mr. Giri, learned Senior Advocate representing the
petitioners, after going through the afore noted prescriptions of
the Advertisement, submitted that the disabled candidates are
entitled 4% of horizontal reservation and such reservation would
only be extended to the candidates, who are residents of State of
Bihar or having domicile of Bihar. The aforesaid facts are also
fortified in view of letter No. 2701 dated 13.02.2024, which has
been published as Master Circular in relation to the reservation
for appointment, promotion and admission in educational
institutions. The said letter clarified that with regard to the
equal participation and other facilities of disabled persons,
detailed circulars and resolution No. 13062 dated 12.10.2017,
resolution No. 962 dated 22.01.2021 have been issued. Clause 6
Patna High Court CWJC No.6378 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
10/24
of the Master Circular mandates that the benefit of reservation
will be given only to the candidates who are residents of Bihar
and therefore, candidates who are outside the State of Bihar will
not be given any reservation.
5. The petitioners apprehending foul play on account
of lack of clarification with regard to extending benefit of
reservation to the candidates, who are not even the resident of
State of Bihar, earlier moved before this Court in CWJC No.
17020 of 2024 titled as Pankaj Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Bihar
& Ors. seeking a direction, inter alia, upon the concerned
respondents to prepare the merit list against Advertisement No.
22/2024 for appointment to the post of Primary Teachers, after
giving the benefit of reservation of disabled quota to the
candidates belonging to the State of Bihar and the candidates
who applied against the disabled quota from outside the State of
Bihar shall be considered against Unreserved Category in
compliance of resolution No. 20150 dated 15.11.2022. The
relief was also sought for to declare any appointment made in
conflict of resolution No. 20150 dated 15.11.2022 and letter No.
2701 dated 13.02.2024 void ab initio, illegal and bad in law. The
aforesaid writ petition however came to be dismissed vide order
dated 26.11.2024 on the ground that the writ application is
Patna High Court CWJC No.6378 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
11/24
premature and the petitioners do not have locus to maintain the
present writ petition.
6. This court has further been apprised that before
publication of the advertisement, the General Administration
Department had published resolution bearing memo No. 962
dated 22.01.2021 with respect to giving reservation to the
disabled candidates upto 4% horizontal reservation to the
candidates belonging to the disabled quota in view of section 34
of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016.
Notwithstanding the clear position in law that the disabled
candidates outside the State of Bihar are to be adjusted in the
General Category, the Commission after publishing the final
merit list of TRE-III has given horizontal reservation to the
disabled candidates outside the State of Bihar and, as such,
deprived the petitioners from their rightful claim to get the
benefit of reservation on account of being resident and having
domicile of the State of Bihar.
7. While pressing the writ petition, Mr. Giri, learned
Senior Advocate further submitted that the Education
Department has published the Bihar State School Teachers
(Appointment, Transfer, Disciplinary proceeding and Service
Conditions) Rules, 2023 on 10.04.2023. Rule 6 thereof has
Patna High Court CWJC No.6378 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
12/24
clarified that the provision for reservation in direct appointment
in the State of Bihar shall be governed with the guidelines
issued by the General Administration Department but the
respondents are deviating from the guidelines and circulars
published by the General Administration Department, where
purposes is to give reservation to the disabled quota candidates,
who are the residents of Bihar. The General Administration
Department in its letter published in the Bihar Gazette on
09.03.2011 by giving a reference to letter No. 70 dated
11.06.1996 clarified that in the State services the benefit of
reservation will be given to the persons or the candidates, who
are the residents of Bihar. The stipulation mentioned in the
afore noted letter has further been reiterated by the General
Administration Department through its letter bearing Memo No.
20150 dated 15.11.2022 by which it has been stated that in
terms of the Bihar Act 15/2003, the benefit of reservation will
be given to the residents of Bihar in State services. The said
letter further clarified that any candidates who are not the
residents of Bihar are eligible for appointment but their results
will be published as per the merit in the General Category.
Referring to the cut off marks fixed for various categories of
successful candidates published by the Commission, attention of
Patna High Court CWJC No.6378 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
13/24
this Court has been drawn that the benefit of reservation has
been given to the candidates who are not even the residents of
Bihar and instead of publishing their result in the General
Category; they have been allowed the benefit of reservation
under the disabled category, contrary to the guidelines of the
General Administration Department as well as the Bihar Act,
15/2003.
8. In view of the afore noted contention, learned
Senior Advocate representing the petitioners seeking a direction
to hold the part of the final result as wholly bad, illegal and
against the terms of the resolutions and the Bihar Act 15/2003.
9. On the other hand, refuting the contentions of the
learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioners, learned
Advocates for the State as well as the Commission have
unanimously submitted that the disabled candidates of outside
the State of Bihar were declared successful in Unreserved
Category under Advertisement No. 22/2024. It is informed that
Total 552 disabled candidates of outside the State of Bihar were
extended the benefits of disability in Unreserved Category. The
resolution in relation to reservation to disabled candidates,
including the resolution issued by the Personnel and
Administrative Reforms Department as contained in Memo No.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6378 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
14/24
62 dated 05.01.2007, Memo No. 13062 dated 12.10.2017 issued
by the General Administration Department and the resolution
contained in Memo No. 962 dated 22.01.2021, there is no such
prescription that the benefit of divyang reservation will be given
only to divyang (disabled) candidates of the State of Bihar and
forbid the disabled candidates of the outside the State of Bihar
to extend the benefits of disability reservation.
10. Referring to resolution no. 962 dated 22.01.2021,
it is submitted that in terms with the mandate of Rights of
Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, the General Administration
Department, Government of Bihar has extended 4% reservation
to the disabled candidates in the recruitment of the State
services and 5% reservation has been made to the disabled
persons in admission of educational academic/institutions under
the State of Bihar. In para-2 (2) of the resolution dated
22.01.2021, a clear prescription has been made that based upon
merit qualification of the disabled candidate they would be
included in Unreserved Category provided they have not availed
the earlier benefit of relaxation, limitation of age, qualification
and of computer skills etc. It is further submitted that under the
Bihar Act 15/2003, the provisions have been made that the
resident of candidates outside the State of Bihar will not claim
Patna High Court CWJC No.6378 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
15/24
the benefit of reservation under the State of Bihar and it has
further been clarified that the candidate of any categories
outside the State of Bihar will not be entitled for reservation in
the State of Bihar but prior to issuance of resolution contained
in Memo No. 8962 dated 21.05.2025 candidates of other State
of Bihar had also been selected on their own merit under
Unreserved Category. Thus, it is manifest that prior to coming
into force of the said provisions, the candidates of all the
categories outside the State of Bihar had been selected on their
merit including the persons with disability.
11. However, after passage of time, it was found that
the disabled candidates outside the State of Bihar are being
selected on their merit in the State of Bihar due to which the
disabled candidates of the State of Bihar, even in all respect they
fulfill the requisite qualification, are not getting the position in
the merit list or selected in the government service or in the
higher academic institutions. In the aforesaid premise, the issue
of reservation of disabled persons is meticulously examined and
took note of the fact that the neighbour States have also been
providing horizontal reservation to the disabled candidates who
are the original residents of their States. The Government of
Bihar under its policy decision vide its resolution contained in
Patna High Court CWJC No.6378 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
16/24
Memo No. 8962 dated 21.05.2025 resolved that under the State
of Bihar in the appointment of the services of State of Bihar and
admission in higher educational institution, only the reservation
would be provided to permanent resident of Bihar even under
the horizontal reservation but it would not be retrospective in
nature. Since the matter which has been raised by the petitioners
is obviously prior to issuance of resolution contained in Memo
No. 8962 dated 21.05.2025; the aforesaid provisions would not
be applicable in the matter of the petitioners in the instant writ
petition. Moreover, after publication of the final result, the entire
selection procedures have come to an end and the appointments
have also taken place.
12. This Court has carefully heard the learned Senior
Advocate/Advocates for the respective parties and also perused
the relevant prescriptions of the resolutions/Act referred
hereinabove.
13. The only point for consideration as emerged out
before this Court is as to whether the disabled candidates of
outside of State of Bihar are entitled to get the benefit of
horizontal reservation under the Open category in terms with the
circulars and the guidelines issued by the State of Bihar through
the General Administration Department time to time?
Patna High Court CWJC No.6378 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
17/24
14. Before coming to the issue, it would be pertinent to
recapitulate the legal position as crystallized by the Apex Court
that even a candidate belonging to any of the vertical reservation
categories who on the basis of own merit is entitled to be
selected in the Open or the General Category, his selection
would not be counted against the quota reserved for such
vertical category. The Apex Court in Saurav Yadav & Ors. vs.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [(2021) 4 SCC 542], while
considering the issue as to whether such principle laid down in
the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992 Supp (3)
SCC 217] and followed subsequently in various decisions also
applies to the cases of horizontal reservation, while crystallizing
the conflicting views of different High Courts and taking note of
various earlier pronouncements, held that the reservation, both
vertical and horizontal are method of ensuring representation in
public services where a candidate merit which otherwise entitled
him to be shown in the General Open Category, is foreclosed as
a consequence would be, certainly negate the merit. The Open
Category is open to all and the only condition for a candidate to
be shown in its merit, regardless of whether reservation benefit
of either type is available to her or him.
15. The Hon’ble Supreme Court following the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6378 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
18/24
decision rendered in the case of Saurav Yadav (supra) and
Sadhna Singh Dangi vs. Pinki Asati [(2022) 12 SCC 401] has
recently held in the case of Ramnaresh alias Rinku Kushwah
& Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. [2024 SCC
OnLine SC 2058] that the methodology adopted by the
respondents in compartmentalizing the different categories in
the horizontal reservation and restricting the migration of
meritorious reservation category candidates to the unreserved
seats was totally unsustainable. The relevant paragraph of the
judgment is being quoted hereinbelow:
“16. In view of the settled position of law as laid
down by this Court in the case of Saurav Yadav
(supra) and reiterated in the case of Sadhana Singh
Dangi (supra), the methodology adopted by the
respondents in compartmentalizing the different
categories in the horizontal reservation and
restricting the migration of the meritorious
reserved category candidates to the unreserved
seats is totally unsustainable. In view of the law
laid down by this Court, the meritorious candidates
belonging to SC/ST/OBC, who on their own merit,
were entitled to be selected against the UR-GS
quota, have been denied the seats against the open
seats in the GS quota.”
Emphasis supplied
16. It would also be pertinent to recapitulate before
proceeding further that the benefit of reservation of one State
cannot be extended to the other State. The Constitution Bench of
Patna High Court CWJC No.6378 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
19/24
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ranjana Kumari Vs. State of
Uttaranchal & Ors. [(2013) 14 SCC 710] followed in
subsequent decision including in the case of Sanjeev Kumar &
Anr. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. [AIR 2017 SC 1501] it has been
held that the benefit of reservation of SC/ST candidates upon
migration to another State is not permissible even when the
caste to which they belong is recognized as Scheduled Caste in
both the States.
17. Now coming to the case at hand, the advertisement
in question especially Clause 6(A) it clearly reads that in terms
with resolution No. 962 dated 22.01.2021 issued by the General
and Administration Department, the disabled candidate shall be
extended the benefit of horizontal reservation to make such
claim of reservation. The disabled candidates are mandatorily
required to annex the disability certificate issued by the
competent authority. The aforesaid stipulation further clarified
in Note of Clause 8 that only those disability certificate shall be
admissible which are issued by the Government Medical
College and Hospital.
18. From perusal of the Government resolution No.
962 dated 22.01.2021, it is evident that the same has been issued
in the light of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016,
Patna High Court CWJC No.6378 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
20/24
especially in terms with Section 34 thereof that with regard to
the equal participation in extending other facilities to the
disabled persons in the process of appointment/selection in the
services of the State of Bihar, the benefit of 4% of reservation
will be provided for persons with disabilities in recruitment to
all types of post and services in all the
Department/State/undertaking/Corporation/Bodies/Boards of the
State Government. Whereas, under Section 32 of the Act, 2016,
5% horizontal reservation will be provided for candidates with
disabilities in admission to all Government educational
institutions including those receiving aid from the State
Government. Clause 2 of the said resolution dated 22.01.2021
further clarified that the persons with disabilities shall be
counted under the Unreserved Category on the basis of merit,
provided they have not availed any relaxation related to
reservation such as age limit, qualification, computer
proficiency. All the resolutions which have been referred by the
learned Senior Advocate for the petitioners as well as the
resolution contained in Memo No. 962 dated 22.01.2021 based
upon which the respondents have come out with the case that
the disabled candidates outside the State of Bihar have been
selected keeping in view their merit position in the merit list and
Patna High Court CWJC No.6378 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
21/24
have been adjusted against the vacancies of Unreserved
Category.
19. There cannot be any slightest confrontation with
regard to the legal position that once the candidates, either
claiming General category, vertical reservation or horizontal
reservation secured their position by securing the cut off marks
under the Open category by dint of their merit irrespective of
the fact that they belong to the Reserved category, they shall be
counted against the Open category which is meant for all. This
Court also took note of the relevant provisions of the Bihar Act
15/2003 wherein by making the amendment under Section 4,
third proviso has been added to Section 4(2) which reads as
follows: “Provided further that the candidates residing out of the
State of Bihar shall not claim for the benefits of reservation
under this Act. The repealing and savings Clause of the Bihar
Act, 15/2003 made it clear that all such
orders/resolutions/circulars/provisions of any act which are
inconsistent to this amendment Act shall be deemed to be
repealed to this extent. Indubitably, it is the statutory
prescription of the Act and the Rules which prevails over the
terms of the Advertisement if it is found to be inconsistent.
However, neither there is any inconsistency in the terms of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6378 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
22/24
conditions of the caption advertisement nor the same is under
challenge.
20. Social reservations in favour of SC/ST and OBC
under Article 16(4) of the Constitution are vertical reservation,
whereas special reservation in favour of physically handicapped
women etc. under Article 16(1) or 15(3) of the Constitution are
horizontal reservations. A vertical reservation is made in favour
of the backward class under article 16(4); the candidate
belonging to such backward class may compete for unreserved
post and if they are appointed to the unreserved post on their
own merit, their number will not be counted against the quota
reserved for respective Backward Class. But the aforesaid
principle applicable to vertical social reservations will not apply
to horizontal/special reservation where special reservation for
handicapped is provided within the social reservation for social
caste or other Backward Category, proper procedure is first to
fill up the quota for social caste or other backward category in
order of merit and then find out the number of candidates
among them who belongs to special reservation group of social
caste handicapped. If number of handicapped candidates in such
list is equal or more than number of special reservation quota,
then there is no need for further selection towards the special
Patna High Court CWJC No.6378 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
23/24
reservation quota. Only if there is any shortfall in the requisite
number of social caste or other backward category handicapped
candidates shall have to be taken by deleting the corresponding
number of candidates from the bottom of the list relating to
social caste or other backward category.
21. After careful consideration of the law set at rest by
various decisions of the Apex Court, now again coming to the
facts of the case, it is writ large that the disabled candidates
from outside of the State have been selected keeping in view
their merit position against the vacancies of unreserved category
in terms with resolution No. 962 dated 22.01.2021 since the
disabled quota candidates of OH (Orthopedic), VI (Visually
Impaired) and DD (Deaf and Dumb) of the outside of the State
of Bihar had applied for appointment to the post of teachers
under Open category and they have been adjusted against the
disabled quota which falls within the horizontal reservation
against Open category candidates, hence their selection and
appointment cannot be held to be illegal and unsustainable in
law. Since their appointments have been made in terms with
Clause 2(ii) of the resolution of the General Administration
Department, Government of Bihar contained in Memo No. 962
dated 22.01.2021 where it categorically prescribes that on the
Patna High Court CWJC No.6378 of 2025 dt.27-01-2026
24/24
basis of merit calculation of disabled candidates it would be
done in unreserved category provided they have not availed the
earlier benefit of relaxation, limitation of age, qualification of
computer skill etc. Open category is open for all and once a
disabled candidate even outside of the State of Bihar competes
and secures the cut off marks of a candidate of General
Category and competes the marks for the disabled quota, there
is no illegality in adjusting them against the disabled category
candidates of Open category. Domicile and residence in the
concerned State are necessary or prerequisite conditions only for
reservation and are not applicable for securing a post advertised
under the Open category.
22. In view of the aforesaid facts and the position
obtaining in law, this Court does not find any merit in the
submissions advanced by the learned Senior Advocate for the
petitioners. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(Harish Kumar, J)
Anjani/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 03.02.2026
Transmission Date
Checking your session…