Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(SC) 1652

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SURYA KANT, JOYMALYA BAGCHI, JJ.
Union Of India & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Sajib Roy – Respondent
Civil Appeal Nos. 11718-11719 of 2025 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21392-21393 of 2019) With Civil Appeal Nos. 11720-11721 of 2025 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21394-21395 of 2019) Civil Appeal Nos. 11722-11723 of 2025 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 21926-21927 of 2019) And Civil Appeal Nos. 11724-11725 of 2025 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 22432-22433 of 2019)
Decided on : 09-09-2025

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): in It.9 & 10 : Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv. Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Apoorva Kurup, Adv. Mr. Mukul Singh, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Srivastav, Adv. Mr. Sharath Narayan Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Dr. Nirmal Chopra, AOR Mr. T. N. Singh, AOR Mr. Vikas K. Singh, Adv. Dr. Sham Chand, Adv. Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR Mr. Jay Nirupam, Adv. Mr. D. Girish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pranav Giri, Adv. Mr. Ekansh Sisodia, Adv.
In It.10 : Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv.

IMPORTANT POINT
Reservation – Appointment on post of Constable (GD) – Whether a reserved candidate who has availed relaxation in fees/upper age limit to participate in open competition with general candidates may be recruited against unreserved seats would depend on facts of each case.

Headnote:
Service Law – Reservation – Appointment on post of Constable (GD) – Whether a reserved candidate who has availed relaxation in fees/upper age limit to participate in open competition with general candidates may be recruited against unreserved seats would depend on facts of each case – In the event there is no embargo in recruitment rules/employment notification, such reserved candidates who have scored higher than last selected unreserved candidate shall be entitled to migrate and be recruited against unreserved seats – However, if an embargo is imposed under relevant recruitment rules, such reserved candidates shall not be permitted to migrate to general category seats – As respondents-writ petitioners had availed concession of age for participating in recruitment process, in teeth of Office Memorandum dated 01.07.1998, High Court was wrong in permitting them to be considered for appointment in unreserved category – Common impugned judgment and orders set aside. (Paras 32 and 33)
Facts of the case:
Appellants have assailed common impugned judgment and order dated 12.10.20181 and order dated 26.02.20192 whereby respondents-writ petitioners who had applied as reserved candidates in OBC category after having availed age relaxation for post of Constable (GD) were directed to be considered for recruitment under unreserved category.
Findings of Court:
Earlier circulars applicable to the selection process did not put a restriction on selection of the reserved candidate availing concession in TET marks for appointment in unreserved seats provided they scored higher than the last selected unreserved candidate.
Result : Appeals allowed.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The case involves the interpretation of reservation policies and the eligibility of reserved candidates who have availed of relaxations, such as age relaxation, in recruitment processes for the post of Constable (GD) (!) .
The central issue is whether reserved candidates who participated in open competition after availing relaxation in fees or age limits can be recruited against unreserved seats, especially when their scores are higher than the last unreserved candidate (!) (!) .
The relevant recruitment rules and government instructions differentiate between candidates selected on merit and those who have availed of concessions, with specific provisions that restrict migration of reserved candidates who have used relaxations in certain circumstances (!) (!) .
The Court clarified that relaxation in age or fees serves to enable reserved candidates to compete equally in the selection process and does not inherently affect their merit or eligibility for unreserved seats unless specific embargoes are imposed by recruitment rules or notifications (!) (!) .
An important distinction is made between relaxations permitted as an incidental aid to reservation and those that constitute a barrier to migration. The presence of an embargo under the recruitment rules is crucial in determining eligibility for unreserved seats (!) (!) .
The Court emphasized that the applicability of prior judgments depends on the factual and legal context, especially the statutory or procedural provisions governing the recruitment process. The principles are not universally applicable without considering the specific rules in place (!) (!) .
The decision underscores that if there is no embargo in the recruitment rules, reserved candidates who score higher than the last unreserved candidate are entitled to be considered for unreserved seats, regardless of whether they availed of relaxations (!) .
Conversely, if an embargo is imposed under relevant rules, such reserved candidates cannot migrate to unreserved seats, even if they have higher scores (!) .
The Court set aside the earlier judgment that allowed reserved candidates to be considered for unreserved seats despite having availed of relaxations, reaffirming the importance of the specific recruitment rules and memoranda (!) .
Overall, the outcome hinges on the specific provisions and embargoes in the recruitment notifications and rules, with the Court ruling in favor of the appellants where such embargoes are present, thereby disallowing reserved candidates who used relaxations from migrating to unreserved categories in this case (!) .

Please let me know if you require a detailed analysis or further assistance.

JUDGMENT :

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Appellants have assailed common impugned judgment and order dated 12.10.2018¹[In WP (C) No. 277/2017, WP (C) No. 279/2017, WP (C) No. 280/2017 and WP (C) No.281/2017] and order dated 26.02.2019²[In Review Application No. 3/2019, Review Application No. 4/2019, Review Application No. 5/2019 and Review Application No. 6/2019] whereby the respondents-writ petitioners who had applied as reserved candidates in OBC category after having availed age relaxation for the post of Constable (GD) were directed to be considered for recruitment under unreserved category.

3. Facts in a short compass giving rise to the appeals are as follows –

Staff Selection Commission³[SSC for short] published employment notification for recruitment of Constables (GD) in BSF, CRPF, ITBP, SSB, NIA and SSF and Rifleman in Assam Rifles comprising physical test, written examination and medical examination. As per the employment notification, the prescribed age limit for eligible candidates to participate in the recruitment process was 18 to 23 years as on 01.08.2015 and age relaxation was given to various reserved candidates⁴[Employment Notification no. F. No.3/1/2014–P&P-I (vol-II), Para 4A]. For OBC candidates, i.e., the respondents-writ petitioners, age relaxation was 3 years⁵[Para 4B of the aforementioned notification].

4. All the respondents-writ petitioners availed of such age relaxation for participation in the recruitment process. However, they were declared unsuccessful as they had scored marks lower than the last selected candidate in the OBC category for various departments. But their marks were higher than the last selected candidate in the unreserved category for those departments. Claiming that they ought to be permitted to migrate to the unreserved category, the respondents-writ petitioners approached the High Court. Union of India opposed the prayer on the ground that the respondents- writ petitioners had applied in the OBC category after availing age relaxation and under such circumstances cannot be considered eligible for appointment in unreserved category.

5. Relying on Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr v. State of UP & Ors, (2010) 3 SCC 119, the High Court held that the refusal to permit respondents-writ petitioners to migrate to the unreserved category though they scored higher than the last candidate in such category runs counter to the principles of merit-based recruitment in public services and would be opposed to the principles of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court further held that relaxations in fee and age for reserved candidates to participate in the selection process are concessions in aid of reservation and do not impair the ‘level-playing field’ in the open competition, i.e., written examination where such candidates have scored more than those selected under the unreserved category.

6. Subsequently, Union of India by way of a review petition placed on record an office memorandum no. 36011/1/98-Estt. (Res) dated 01.07.1998 which inter alia provided that SC/ST/OBC candidates who have availed relaxations in age limit, experience qualification or number of chances in written examinations would be deemed unavailable for consideration against the unreserved vacancies. Notwithstanding such office memorandum the High Court refused to review its judgment and the review petition came to be dismissed.

7. We have heard Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Dr. Nirmal Chopra and Ms. Manika Tripathy, learned counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners.

8. The moot issue which falls for consideration is did the High Court err in applying the ratio in Jitendra Kumar (supra) in the teeth of the office memorandum dated 01.07.1998 which put a clog on migration of reserved candidates who have availed concessions in the form of age relaxation for appointment in unreserved category?

9. In Jitendra Kumar (supra) this Court was called upon to decide whet