Ex-servicemen who avail age relaxation cannot demand consideration in unreserved vacancies regardless of merit, as it contravenes governing recruitment rules.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV NARULA, J.

1. The Petitioners assail their non-inclusion in the list of candidates called for document verification for recruitment to Non-Executive Cadres of the Airport Authority of India,, “AAI” Northern Region, with document verification scheduled on 9^th July, 2025 and 10^th July, 2025.

2. The case, though set-up as a grievance of “merit being ignored”, turns on a narrower legal axis. The Petitioners are ex-servicemen. The subject recruitment provides horizontal reservation for the category of “ex- servicemen”. The Petitioners assert that they secured marks higher than the last shortlisted candidate in the unreserved segment and, therefore, deserve to “migrate” to the unreserved category, “UR category” for the purpose of being called for document verification.

3. The Respondents resist the petition on the foundation that the Petitioners were over the prescribed unreserved upper-age limit and could participate in the recruitment process only by availing age relaxation as ex-servicemen. In such circumstances, they cannot claim to be considered against unreserved vacancies. The Respondents also rely on DoPT communications/ material placed on record, which treats reservation for ex-servicemen as ‘horizontal’, but maintains that an ex-serviceman belonging to the unreserved category can be considered for an unreserved post only if eligibility, including age, is satisfied without availing relaxation; if age relaxation is availed, consideration is confined to the ex-servicemen quota.

Factual Matrix

4.1. In February 2025, the Respondents issued Advertisement No. 01/2025/NR, inviting applications for recruitment to various Non-Executive cadres of AAI in the Northern Region. The Petitioners applied under the Ex- Servicemen category., “ESM category” A computer-based written examination was conducted pursuant to the Advertisement, wherein the Petitioners secured 59, 60 and 65 marks, respectively.

4.2. The dispute arose upon declaration of the cut-off scores and publication of the list of candidates shortlisted for document verification. This merit-based shortlist was prepared on the basis of marks obtained and category-wise cut-off scores; the cut-off for the UR category was fixed at 59 marks, whereas the cut-off for ESM category was 66 marks. According to the Petitioners, these scores entitled them to be considered and shortlisted under the UR category.

Petitioners’ Case

5. The Petitioners rely on the proposition that unreserved vacancies are “open” and must be filled on merit from among all candidates, including those who belong to reserved classes. They draw attention to the list published for document verification, which reflects that candidates under the ESM category were called for document verification in descending order of marks, ranging from 81 to 66, whereas the cut-off prescribed for the UR category was 59 marks.

6. The Petitioners claim their marks should have secured them a place at least within the unreserved pool, and that exclusion is arbitrary. It is contended that, since the Petitioners secured marks higher than the last candidate shortlisted in the UR category, the denial of document verification is unlawful. Their case is framed as an illegality in the treatment of horizontal reservation, and, more specifically, as an impermissible denial of the benefit of competing for unreserved seats.

7. They argue that relaxation is an aid, not a bar. As per the principle in the judgement of the Supreme Court inJitendra Kumar Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 119 . age relaxation is a concession to create a level playing field. It does not lowe