Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 1651
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, JOYMALYA BAGCHI, JJ.
Railway Protection Force and Others – Appellants
Versus
Prem Chand Kumar and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11716 of 2025 [SLP (C) No. 20866 of 2019], Civil Appeal No. 11717 of 2025 [SLP (C) No. 28469 of 2019]
Decided On : 09-09-2025
For the Petitioner(s): In SLP(C)28469/19 : Mr. A Mariarputham, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mayilsamy K, Adv. Dr. Gayathiri A S, Adv. Mr. Arun Pandiyan S, Adv. Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, AOR Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Saumya Tandon, Adv. Mr. B K Satija, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Srivastva, Adv. Mr. T S Sabrish, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Mahavir Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aneesh Mittal, AOR Mrs. Juhi Arora, Adv. Ms. Komal Mittal, Adv. Mr. Maasir Javed, Adv. Mr. Virender Singh, Adv. Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, AOR Mr. Kumar Kshitij, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Dwivedi, Adv. Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, AOR Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, Adv. Mr. Abhijeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Singh, Adv. Mr. Aishwary Mishra, Adv. Mr. Dhananjai Shekhwat, Adv. Ms. Anjali Saxena, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Dashrath Singh, Adv. Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, AOR Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Dwivedi, Adv.
Candidates who availed age relaxation in recruitment rules cannot be appointed in unreserved vacancies despite securing higher marks than unreserved candidates.
Headnote:(A) Recruitment in Government Services - Standing Order No. 85 and No. 78 - High Court's directive for reserved candidates to be appointed against unreserved vacancies contrary to established norms - Relevant provisions regarding age and physical measurements concerning recruitment of various categories - Appellants argued that reserved candidates availing concessions could not migrate against unreserved vacancies. (Paras 6, 10, 18, 19, 20)
(B) Legal Principle: A reserved candidate who avails age and physical relaxations may not migrate to unreserved posts even if they secure higher marks - Appellate court recognized the conflict between standing orders and confirmed the applicability of the restrictive standing order. (Paras 16, 19)
Facts of the case:
Respondents-writ petitioners, having applied in reserved categories, contested their exclusion from unreserved vacancies despite securing higher marks than candidates in the unreserved category. (Paras 4, 10)
Findings of Court:
The High Court erred in allowing the respondents based on inappropriate application of standing orders concerning the recruitment rules, affirming restrictions on migration of reserved candidates to unreserved categories. (Paras 19, 20)
Issues: Whether respondents who secured higher marks can be appointed against unreserved vacancies despite having availed relaxations in age/measurements? (Paras 6, 10)
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that migration to unreserved categories from reserved ones based on the standing orders was not permissible if relaxations were availed for qualification. (Paras 16, 19)
Result: Appeals allowed; the High Court's decision is set aside.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of recruitment process. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's observations on legal standing orders. (Para 6 , 10 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 3. arguments regarding eligibility for unreserved category. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. ratio decidendi concerning modification of standing orders. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 5. court's final conclusion and order. (Para 19 , 20) |
JUDGMENT :
JOYMALYA BAGCHI, J.
SLP (C) No. 20866/2019
1. Leave granted.
2. Appellants have assailed judgement and order1 [In Writ Petition (C) No. 1350 of 2017] dated 29.03.2019 whereby the High Court directed the respondents-writ petitioners, who had applied in reserved category and availed relaxation in age and/or physical measurements to participate in the recruitment process and had obtained marks higher than the last selected candidate in the unreserved category, to be appointed in the unreserved category.
3. Shorn of details, factual matrix giving rise to the appeal is as follows:
3.1 On 06.12.2013, Employment Notice No. 1/2013 was issued by 2nd Appellant-Railway Board inviting applications for filling up 659 posts in seven different categories, namely, Constable (Water Carrier), Constable (Safaiwala), Constable (Washerman), Constable (Barber), Constable (Mali), Constable (Tailor) and Constable (Cobbler) in the ancillary services of the Railway Protection Force, including the Railway Protection Special Force. Subsequently, the number of vacancies advertised were enhanced to 763.
3.2 Clause 4(c) of the Employment Notification provided that the candidate must be above 18 years and not more than 25 years to be eligible to apply.
3.3 Upper age relaxation up to 5 years and 3 years was given for SC/ST and OBC candidates respectively.2 [Clause 4(d) of the Employment Notice No. 1/2013] Clause 4(d)(v) provided as follows:
“No age relaxation is allowed to SC/ST/OBC candidates applying against unreserved vacancies.”
3.4 Clause 4(e) prescribed the physical measurements of an eligible candidate with regard to height and chest (expanded and unexpanded) for male and female candidates separately. Concessions with regard to physical measurements for SC/ST and OBC candidates were also prescribed.
3.5 Clause 5 of the Employment Notification laid down the selection process stating eligible candidates in all categories shall be subjected to a written examination, Physical Efficiency Test (PET), Physical Measurement Test (PMT) and trade test for recruitment.
3.6 In the written examination, cut-off for general candidates was 35 percent and cut-off for SC/ST candidates was 30 percent. If successful in the written examination, the candidate would be called for PET comprising 1600/800 metres run, high jump and long jump. Though no marks were to be awarded, the candidate must qualify in all the categories.
3.7 Candidates who succeeded in the written examination, PET and PMT were to appear in a trade test specific to each category where such candidate was to secure at least 50 percent marks. The number of candidates who were to be called for the trade test was not to exceed three times the prescribed vacancy.
3.8 Certain candidates in the State of Assam filed WP (C) No. 2120/2016 (Japhed Dhan and others vs. Union of India) claiming that they had been wrongly disqualified in the PMT and PET. Consequent upon an interim order of the Guwahati High Court dated 01.04.2016, 74 vacancies of the North Frontier Railway in Employment Notice No. 1/2013 were excluded such that the vacancies that could be filled up was brought down to 689.
3.9 Pursuant to the aforesaid selection process 400 candidates were empanelled in different categories. Respondents-writ petitioners were not empanelled as either they had not qualified trade test for their respective trades (that is, did not score minimum 50 percent in trade test) or had not qualified the cut-off for their respective trades in their reserved category or there was no vacancy in their trade.
4. As a number of vacancies in various categories remained unfilled, resp
