Back
Can Domicile-Based Relaxation Limit ? High Court Rules In Favour Of SC Candidates
In a significant ruling addressing the intersection of regional and reservation policies, the has clarified that do not automatically confine candidates to reserved quotas. The judgment, delivered by Justice Rajnesh Oswal, provides much-needed relief to petitioners who were denied selection despite achieving higher merit scores than their counterparts in the open category.
A Dispute Over Merit and Standards
The case arose when Amit Kundal and three other candidates, all Scheduled Caste (SC) applicants from the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, challenged their exclusion from a recruitment drive for Constable (General Duty) posts in the (CAPFs) and Rifleman (General Duty) in the . While these candidates qualified the written examination with higher scores than the , authorities refused to consider them for , citing that they had availed physical standard relaxations (height and chest measurements) during the testing phase.
The official respondents argued that under the recruitment notice, any candidate availing relaxations must be counted strictly against their , effectively neutralizing their superior written performance.
The Court’s Legal Analysis
Justice Rajnesh Oswal rejected the restrictive interpretation offered by the authorities. The High Court examined the and concluded that the relaxations provided—specifically regarding height and chest expansion—were extended to all residents of Jammu and Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, and certain other regions, regardless of their caste or category.
"The relaxation granted to the residents of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir applies uniformly across both unreserved and reserved categories,"
the Court noted, emphasizing that the petitioners received no specific benefit linked to their status as Scheduled Caste members. Therefore, applying the rule that forces reserved-category candidates who receive caste-specific relaxations into the reserved quota was both factually incorrect and legally discriminatory.
Key Observations
The High Court emphasized that the denial of selection based on these domicile-neutral relaxations violated the :
-
"The petitioners have not been granted the benefit of relaxation in height and chest measurements on account of their SC category status. As such, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners' SC status has resulted in a distinct disadvantage to them."
-
"The distinction drawn by the official respondents in their response is discriminatory and directly contravenes ."
-
"If candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST), Other Backward Class (OBC), or Ex-Servicemen categories are selected on their own merit, without availing themselves of relaxed standards reserved exclusively for those categories, they must be accommodated against unreserved vacancies."
Balancing Equity and Justice
While the Court found that the petitioners suffered grave injustice, it stopped short of setting aside the appointments of the candidates currently serving in the posts, noting that they had already undergone extensive training and had been in service for five years.
To rectify the situation, the Court invoked its power to ensure equity, directing the authorities to offer appointment orders to the petitioners if vacancies exist. In the event of a shortage of seats, the Court ordered the creation of to accommodate the successful, high-merit candidates within three months. This decision underscores that regional intended to encourage participation should not act as a barrier to meritorious candidates competing in open recruitment.
