# Neha Sharma & Ors v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 500
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-23
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 7118 of 2022
- **Bench:** Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/neha-sharma-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53394
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Sri
Rajeshwar
Tripathi,
C.S.C.,
Sri
Awadhesh C. Srivastava, Addl. C.S.C.,
Brijesh Narayan, Mewa Lal Gupta, Brijendra
5 All. Neha Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
501
Mani, Ravi Prakash Singh, R.S. Umrao,
Standing Counsel

A. Practice & Procedure - Writ Petition -
Non-joinder of necessary parties - If none
of the selected candidates, who are likely
to be affected, are impleaded even in a
representative capacity, the writ petition
is not maintainable. (Para 7)

B. Service Law - Reservation - Horizontal
Reservation
-
Women
candidates
-
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 15(3),
16(1) & 16(6) - U.P. Public Services
(Reservation for Women) Act, 1993 -
Section 3(3) - In the instant case, the first
set of petitioners were women belonging
to
the
Economically
Weaker
Section
(EWS),
who
claimed
that
the
20%
horizontal reservation for women should
be applied independently within the
EWS quota, which comprised 902 seats
(10%
of
the
total
9027
seats
advertised), thereby entitling them to
181 seats (20% of 902) reserved for
women under the EWS category - State
admitted that 722 seats for women
under the Open Category and 181 seats
for
women
under
the
Economically
Weaker Section (EWS) were clubbed
together, and a total of 903 seats were
allotted to women. On this basis, the
State claimed that the entire women's
reservation
in
both
categories
was
satisfied. However, the State could not
point
to
any
provision,
order,
or
Government Order (G.O.) that allowed
such
clubbing.
Held
:
Women's
reservation
must
be
applied
independently and separately in each
category.
Because
of
this
unlawful
clubbing, only 34 women in the EWS
quota actually benefited, instead of the
181 seats reserved for them. Court Held
that the grievance raised by the first set
of petitioners has merit. (Para 3, 4)

Allowed. (E-5)

## Text

500 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
employee to be retained on medical grounds,
then authorities ceased with such matter are hidebound in law to apply their mind to the request
made and discuss medical ground and medical
papers so as to find out to as to whether case falls
in genuine and exceptional category cases or not
as per Retention Policy.

14. It is true that the transfer policies are
not to be enforced by Courts ordinarily but it is
equally true that if the employer rolls out a
transfer policy giving benefit of exceptional
circumstances, it should honour to its own policy
as it should not be a waste paper document.
Authorities are expected to go by it as far as
possible.

15. Very recently in the judgment, this
Court in the case of Jitendra Singh v. State of
U.P and Another (Special Appeal No. 564 of
2024) has held that when the government has
framed transfer policy through government
order, it is bound to follow the same, however,
there may be exceptional circumstances where
for the reasons to be recorded employee may
take stand that transfer policy though laid down
but provisions cannot be invoked in public
interest or administrative exigency. The relevant
portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:

 "6. Learned Single Judge also erred
in law when he held in the order that the transfer
policy is only directory in nature and, therefore,
it did not bind the officials who were passing the
order impugned in the writ petition. We are of
the view that when there is a Government
Order/Transfer Policy of the State then there is a
legitimate expectation of the employee that the
advantages which flowed from the Government
Order would be made applicable to that
employee. Definitely as per the law laid down in
A.L. Kalra (supra), a Government Order had a
binding force on the Authority which had issued
it and which was taking advantage of it."

16. In the given facts and circumstances
of this case, therefore, the Court considers it
appropriate to remit the matter to the authority to
reassess the medical papers of the petitioner in
the matter of his request for benefit under the
Retention Policy. The authority is also directed to
consider the sympathetic request of the petitioner
to be retained for another one year at his current
police station if he undertakes before the
competent respondent to retain him at Prayagraj
itself to another year i.e. 2025-26.

17. Thus, this writ petition is disposed
of with above observations and directions. In the
circumstances
the
order
dated
7.5.2025
transferring the petitioner from Prayagraj to
Visakhaptnam impugned as annexure 7 to the
petition is quashed.

18. The petition is accordingly disposed
of.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 500
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 7118 of 2022
With other connected cases

Neha Sharma & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Alok Mishra, Sri Durvesh Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri
Rajeshwar
Tripathi,
C.S.C.,
Sri
Awadhesh C. Srivastava, Addl. C.S.C.,
Brijesh Narayan, Mewa Lal Gupta, Brijendra
5 All. Neha Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
501
Mani, Ravi Prakash Singh, R.S. Umrao,
Standing Counsel

A. Practice & Procedure - Writ Petition -
Non-joinder of necessary parties - If none
of the selected candidates, who are likely
to be affected, are impleaded even in a
representative capacity, the writ petition
is not maintainable. (Para 7)

B. Service Law - Reservation - Horizontal
Reservation
-
Women
candidates
-
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 15(3),
16(1) & 16(6) - U.P. Public Services
(Reservation for Women) Act, 1993 -
Section 3(3) - In the instant case, the first
set of petitioners were women belonging
to
the
Economically
Weaker
Section
(EWS),
who
claimed
that
the
20%
horizontal reservation for women should
be applied independently within the
EWS quota, which comprised 902 seats
(10%
of
the
total
9027
seats
advertised), thereby entitling them to
181 seats (20% of 902) reserved for
women under the EWS category - State
admitted that 722 seats for women
under the Open Category and 181 seats
for
women
under
the
Economically
Weaker Section (EWS) were clubbed
together, and a total of 903 seats were
allotted to women. On this basis, the
State claimed that the entire women's
reservation
in
both
categories
was
satisfied. However, the State could not
point
to
any
provision,
order,
or
Government Order (G.O.) that allowed
such
clubbing.
Held
:
Women's
reservation
must
be
applied
independently and separately in each
category.
Because
of
this
unlawful
clubbing, only 34 women in the EWS
quota actually benefited, instead of the
181 seats reserved for them. Court Held
that the grievance raised by the first set
of petitioners has merit. (Para 3, 4)

Allowed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam
Shamshery, J.)

1. In the present case there are two sets
of petitioners, who have participated in a
recruitment for the selection of Sub
Inspector
(Civil
Police)/Platoon
Commander PAC/FSSO Fire Service and
remained unsuccessful, whereas selected
candidates, after completing their training,
are posted at their respective places. None
of the likely affected selected candidates
was made party respondent in present
bunch of writ petitions, despite pending for
last 3 years.

2. First set of petitioners are
woman, who belongs to Economical
Weaker Section and are claiming complete
and independent 20 percent horizontal
women reservation (181 seats) under total
EWS reservation i.e. 10 percent vertical
reservation of entire EWS quota (902 seats)
out of of total (9027 seats) advertised.
Details of Writ Petitions of first set are as
follows:-

"Writ A No. 7118/2022 (Neha
Sharma and 53 others)

Writ A No. 10654/2022 (Anjali
Singh and another)

Writ A No. 11002/2022 (Richa
Singh)

Writ A No. 11279/2022 (Km.
Himanshi Chaudhary)

Writ A No. 18753/2022 (Sadhana
Saraswat and another)"

3. The State has accepted that seats
for woman horizontal reservation under
Open Category (722) and seats from
woman
horizontal
reservation
under
Economical Weaker Section Category
(181) were clubbed together and in total
903 seats were allotted to woman and thus
claimed that entire reservation of women in
both said categories was satisfied.
502 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
4. During arguments respondent
State was failed to show any provision,
order or G.O. that instead of applying
reservation for woman independently and
separately under Open Category and EWS,
they could club both reservations, which
could lead a situation as in present case that
only 34 women under EWS quota were
benefited
with
horizontal
reservation
instead of 181 i.e. reserved seats, therefore,
grievance of petitioners of first set has
substance. Woman reservation in other
categories was provided correctly. A chart
provided by the State is mentioned herein
after, which would make the position very
explicit :-

5. In aforesaid circumstances S/Sri
Alok Mishra and Durvesh Kumar, learned
advocates for petitioners (first set) have
placed reliance upon judgments of Supreme
Court passed in the cases of Indra
Sawhney and others vs. Union of India
and others, AIR 1993 SC 477, Rajesh
Kumar Daria vs. Rajasthan Public
Service Commission and others, (2007) 8
SCC 785 and Anil Kumar Gupta and
others vs. State of U.P. and others, (1995)
5 SCC 173.

6. Second set of petitioners are ExService Men, belonging to Economical
Weaker
Section.
According
to
them
reservation in said category was also not
correctly applied. The State has not taken
any specific stand so far as present set of
petitions is concerned. The details of writ
petitions of this set are as follows :-

 "Writ A No. 7119/2022 (Ravi
Shankar Tripathi)

Writ A No. 7072/2022 (Vineet
Kaushik)

Writ A No. 8243/2022 (Yuvraj
Upadhyay)

Writ A No. 12550/2022 (Rajeew
Mishra)"

7. The Court also takes note that if
selected candidates even in representative
capacity are not impleaded as parties, the
writ petition itself may be not maintainable.
In Prabodh Verma & Ors. v. State of
Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [(1984) 4 SCC 251,
the Supreme Court has held that :-

"The first defect was that of nonjoinder of necessary parties. The only
respondents to the Sangh's petition were the
State of Uttar Pradesh and its concerned
officers. Those who were vitally concerned,
namely, the reserve pool teachers, were not
made parties - not even by joining some of
them
in
a
representative
capacity,
considering that their number was too large
for all of them to be joined individually as
respondents. The matter, therefore, came to
be decided in their absence. A High Court
ought not to decide a writ petition under
5 All. Neha Sharma & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
503
Article 226 of the Constitution without the
persons who would be vitally affected by
its judgment being before it as respondents
in a representative capacity if their number
is too large, and, therefore, the Allahabad
High Court ought not to have proceeded to
hear and dispose of the Sangh's writ
petition without insisting upon the reserve
pool teachers being made respondents to
that writ petition, or at least some of them
being made respondents in a representative
capacity, and had the petitioners refused to
do so, ought to have dismissed that petition
for non-joinder of necessary parties." See
also All India SC & ST Employees Assn. &
Anr. etc. v. A. Arthur Jeen & Ors. etc.,
2001(2) SCT 737 (SC) : [(2001) 6 SCC
380] and Indu Shekhar Singh & Ors. v.
State of U.P. & Ors., 2006(2) SCT 808
(SC) : [2006(5) Scale 107].}

8. The Punjab and Haryana High
Court in a recent judgment of Sunaina
Delu vs. State of Punjab and others,
2025:PHHC:001998
has
considered
allotment of seats in horizontal reservation
and held as follows :-

"7. The second relates to the
difference between the nature of vertical
reservation and horizontal reservation.
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 class under
Article 16(4), the candidates belonging to
such backward class, may compete for nonreserved posts and if they are appointed to
the non-reserved posts on their own merit,
their numbers will not be counted against
the quota reserved for the 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 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 - Indira Sawhney (Supra),
R. K. Sabharwal vs. State of Punjab (1995
(2) SCC 745), Union of India vs. Virpal
Singh Chauvan (1995 (6) SCC 684 and
Ritesh R. Sah vs. 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 3 of 6
Neutral Citation No: 2025: PHHC:001998
CWP-8069-2021 4- 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 Castes-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
within the vertical reservation quota will be
counted against the horizontal reservation
for women. Let us illustrate by an example:

8. If 19 posts are reserved for SCs
(of which the quota for women is four), 19
SC candidates shall have to be first listed in
accordance with merit, from out of the
504 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
successful eligible candidates. If such list
of 19 candidates contains four SC women
candidates, then there is no need to disturb
the list by including any further SC women
candidate. On the other hand, if the list of
19 SC candidates contains only two woman
candidates, then the next two SC woman
candidates in accordance with merit, will
have to be included in the list and
corresponding number of candidates from
the bottom of such list shall have to be
deleted, so as to ensure that the final 19
selected SC candidates contain four women
SC candidates. [But if the list of 19 SC
candidates contains more than four women
candidates, selected on own merit, all of
them will continue in the list and there is no
question of deleting the excess women
candidate on the ground that 'SC-women'
have been selected in excess of the
prescribed internal quota of four.

9. In this case, the number of
candidates to be selected under general
category (open competition), were 59, out
of which 11 were earmarked for women.
When the first 59 from among the 261
successful candidates were taken and listed
as per merit, it contained 11 women
candidates, which was equal to the quota
for 'General Category'

Women' There was thus no need
for any further selection of woman
candidates under the special reservation for
women. But what RPSC did was to take
only the first 48 candidates in the order of
merit (which contained 11 4 of 6 Neutral
Citation No: 2025: PHRC:001998 CWP8069-2021-5 women) and thereafter, fill
the next 11 posts under the general
category with woman candidates. As a
result, we find that among 59 general
category candidates in all 22 women have
been selected consisting of eleven women
candidates selected on their own merit
(candidates at Sl.Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 19, 21,
25, 31, 35 & 41 of the Selection List) and
another eleven (candidates at Sl. Nos. 54,
61, 62, 63, 66, 74, 75, 77, 78, 79 & 80 of
the
Selection
List)
included
under
reservation quota for 'General Category
Women This is clearly Impermissible. The
process of selections made by RPSC
amounts to treating the 20% reservation for
women as a vertical reservation, instead of
being a horizontal reservation within the
vertical reservation.

10. Similarly, we find that in
regard to 24 posts for OBC, 19 candidates
were selected by RPSC in accordance with
merit from among OBC candidates which
included
three
woman
candidates.
Thereafter, another five women were
selected under the category of 'OBC
Women', instead of adding only two which
was the shortfall. Thus there were in all 8
women candidates, among the 24 OBC
candidates found in the Selection List. The
proper course was to list 24 OBC
candidates as per the merit and then find
out number of woman candidates among
them, and only fill the shortfall to make up
the quota of five for woman."

9. The Supreme Court in Saurav
Yadav and others vs. State of U.P. and
others, (2021) 4 SCC 542 has held as
follows :-

"59. The features of vertical
reservations are:

(i) They cannot be filled by the
open category, or categories of candidates
other than those specified and have to be
filled by candidates of the concerned social
category only (SC/ST/OBC);

(ii) Mobility ('migration') from
the reserved (specified category) to the
unreserved (open category) slot is possible,
based
on
meritorious
performance;
5 All. Vivek Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
505

(iii) In case of migration from
reserved to open category, the vacancy in the
reserved category should be filled by another
person from the same specified category,
lower in rank,

(iv) If the vacancies cannot be filled
by the specified categories due to shortfall of
candidates, the vacancies are to be 'carried
forward' or dealt with appropriately by rules.

60. Horizontal reservations on the
other hand, by their nature, are not inviolate
pools or carved in stone. They are premised on
their
overlaps
and
are
'interlocking'
reservations 21. As a sequel, they are to be
calculated concurrently and along with the
inviolate 'vertical' (or "social") reservation
quotas, by application of the various steps laid
out with clarity in paragraph 11 of Justice
Lalit's judgement. They cannot be carried
forward. The first rule that applies to filling
horizontal reservation quotas is one of
adjustment, i.e. examining whether on merit
any of the horizontal categories are adjusted in
the merit list in the open category, and then, in
the quota for such horizontal category within
the particular specified/ social reservation.

61. The open category is not a
'quota', but rather available to all women and
men alike. Similarly, as held in Rajesh Kumar
Daria22, there is no quota for men. If we are to
accept the second view [as held by the
Allahabad High Court in Ajay Kumar v. State
of UP23 and the Madhya Pradesh High Court
in State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Uday
Sisode & Ors24, referred to in paragraph 20 of
Justice Lalit's judgement], the result would be
confining the number of women candidates,
irrespective of their performance, in their
social reservation categories and therefore,
destructive of logic and merit. The second
view, therefore - perhaps unconsciously
supports- but definitely results in confining the
number of women in the select list to the
overall numerical quota assured by the rule."

10. As referred above, State has not
followed dictum of Supreme Court and
wrongly clubbed reservation for women in
Open
Category
and
EWS.
Therefore,
following directions are issued :-

 (i) The concerned respondent will
prepare a separate merit list for EWS
candidates (women) providing 20% horizontal
reservation.

(ii) Thereafter, prepare a list of
likely to be disturbed selected candidates.

(iii)Thereafter, vacant seats, if any,
be identified and accommodate women
candidates (EWS) from above prepared list
according to merit, already not part of 903
selected women, however, none of already
selected candidates will be displaced.

(iv)
In
upcoming
selection
processes, State will follow correct and legal
method to apply all reservations including
horizontal reservation.

(v) The second set of petitioners are
4 in numbers and since number of vacant seats
are not on record, therefore, no relief could be
granted to them.

11. All writ petitions are disposed of.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 505
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 14182 of 2024

Vivek Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vinay Kumar Singh