Kerala High Court: In a matter concerning the issue of whether a candidate who had applied under the General Category could later claim the benefit of reservation, if their community was included in the backward community list after the last date for submitting the application, the Division Bench of A. Muhamed Mustaque* and Johnson John, JJ., held that a candidate who had applied for a government post under the General Category could not later claim the benefit of reservation if their community was included in the reserved category after the last date of application, as eligibility must be determined based on the status at the time of notification.
Background
The Kerala Public Service Commission (‘KPSC’) had published a notification dated 30-08-2016, inviting applications for the post of High School Assistant (Physical Science) in Malayalam medium. The last date for submitting applications was 05-10-2016.
Respondent 7 had applied for the said post under the General Category. She belonged to the Mukhari/Moovari community. Subsequently, on 18-12-2018, the Government issued an order including the Mukhari/Moovari community in the OBC list under Schedule III, Part I of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules, 1958 (‘Rules’).
Pursuant to this inclusion, respondent 7 obtained a non-creamy layer certificate from the Village Officer on 13-06-2019 and updated her profile on the PSC portal accordingly. The ranked list was published by the PSC on 18-11-2020, wherein she was included under the General Category, while the petitioner was listed under the OBC Category.
Later, respondent 7 submitted a request to the PSC seeking the benefit of OBC reservation, which was rejected by the Commission. Challenging this decision, she approached the Kerala Administrative Tribunal.
The Tribunal, while considering her case, noted that in another recruitment process for Women Police Constables, the PSC had granted reservation benefits under similar circumstances. It held that the Commission could not apply inconsistent standards in similar cases. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that reservation was to be considered at the time of appointment, not merely at the time of application.
On these grounds, the Tribunal set aside the PSC’s decision and declared that respondent 7 should be treated as an OBC candidate entitled to reservation. Given her position in the ranked list, it was further ordered that she be given preference over the petitioner, who held a lower rank within the OBC category. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present petition.
Analysis and Decision
The Court observed that Article 16 of the Constitution ensures equal opportunity in matters of public employment, which is a core constitutional value. It noted that there were likely several candidates belonging to the Mukhari/Moovari community who had not claimed the benefit of reservation, simply because, at the time of the notification, their community had not been included in the OBC category.
The Court emphasised that equal opportunity requires a level playing field, and the last date of the notification serves as a critical cut-off to ensure fairness among all eligible candidates. It cautioned that one cannot gain an unfair advantage or “steal a march” over others due to a subsequent change in circumstances.
It held that reservation benefits cannot be claimed based on fortuitous events, and if such a claim could not be made at the time of the notification, it cannot be asserted retrospectively at a later stage.
The Court noted that the Tribunal had relied upon a previous instance where the Public Service Commission had extended the benefit of OBC reservation to a candidate who had not submitted an application under the OBC category. However, the Court observed that even if the factual circumstances in both cases appeared similar, such an approach by the PSC could not be approved, as one erroneous act does not create a precedent or a right for others to claim similar relief.
The Court held that reservation benefits cannot be claimed retrospectively, unless explicitly permitted by the governing rules. It concluded that the Tribunal had committed a serious error in allowing respondent 7 claim for OBC reservation post-notification.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal and allowed the Original Petition.
[Sini KV v. State of Kerala, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 4575, decided on 04-07-2025]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Petitioner: P.NANDAKUMAR, VIVEK VIJAYAKUMAR, MERIN K JIMMY
For Respondent: SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER A.J.VARGHESE, .P.C.SASIDHARAN, SC, KPSC, ASWANTH P.T., KALEESWARAM RAJ, KUM.THULASI K. RAJ, APARNA NARAYAN MENON, CHINNU MARIA ANTONY, MANUEL P.J., MANSOOR ALI
Buy Constitution of India HERE
