Mechanics of Affirmative Action Quotas

Evidence 1 and Inference 1 are coherent. Caste/tribe-based quotas operating independently are vertical reservations. Evidence 2 and Inference 2 are coherent. Quotas for women cut across all vertical categories and stem from Article 15(3). Evidence 3 and Inference 3 are contradictory. Part III accommodates BOTH vertical (Art 15(4)/16(4)) and horizontal (Art 15(3)) reservations. The correct counterpart is the constitutional co-existence of both reservation types.

The Assertion is correct. Open merit qualification cannot exclude a candidate from horizontal quotas. Reason (R1) is true and correctly explains the assertion. Apex court rulings clarify that open merit takes precedence before calculating category-specific horizontal allocations. Reason (R2) is factually false. Women belonging to SC/ST/OBC can access vertical quotas, and Article 15(3) provides additional horizontal backing. The correct counterpart is that women can access both vertical and horizontal provisions depending on intersectionality.

Statement 1 is incorrect. Top scorers qualify under general/open merit first, preserving the vertical quota for others. The correct counterpart is the open-merit qualification rule. Statement 2 is correct. Supreme Court rulings state that an intersectional candidate scoring high enough for open merit must be counted as general/unreserved and retain access to the horizontal general quota. Statement 3 is incorrect. Horizontal reservations for women are explicitly valid under Article 15(3).

Statement 1 is correct. SC/ST/OBC = Vertical. Statement 2 is correct. Women/Disabled/Veterans = Horizontal. Statement 3 is incorrect. Part III directly enables horizontal reservations (Art 15(3)). The correct counterpart is the constitutional authorization of horizontal quotas. Statement 4 is correct. Article 15(3) anchors special provisions for women. Thus, exactly three statements are correct.