Supreme Court: While considering the instant appeal challenging the impugned judgments whereby the respondents 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; the Division Bench of Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi*, JJ., held that where there is no embargo in the recruitment rules/employment notification, such reserved candidates who have scored higher than the 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.
Background:
Staff Selection Commission (SSC) 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 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 candidates. For OBC candidates, which included the respondents, age relaxation was 3 years.
The respondents availed 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. However, their marks were higher than the last selected candidate in the unreserved category for those departments.
The respondents claimed that they should be permitted to migrate to the unreserved category, and therefore, they approached Tripura High Court. Their prayer was opposed on the ground that the respondents had applied in the OBC category after availing age relaxation and under such circumstances, they could not be considered eligible for appointment in unreserved category.
The High Court, upon relying on Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of UP, (2010) 3 SCC 119, held that the refusal to permit the respondents 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. It was 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.
Thereafter, the Union of India by way of a review petition placed on record an office memorandum 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. However, the High Court refused to review its judgment and the review petition came to be dismissed.
Aggrieved, the Union of India approached the Supreme Court via the present appeal.
Court’s Assessment:
Perusing the matter, the Court had to consider whether the High Court erred in applying e ratio in Jitendra Kumar (supra) in the teeth of the office memorandum dated 01-07-1998 which put an embargo on migration of reserved candidates who have availed concessions in the form of age relaxation for appointment in unreserved category?
Delving into Jitendra Kumar (supra), it was noted that the Supreme Court therein had to decide whether availing relaxation in fees/upper age limit in the reserved category would disentitle such candidates from being considered for appointment in the unreserved seats. The Court therein had held such relaxations in fee or age were incidental and ancillary provisions which made the core concept of reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution effective. Such enlargement of zone of consideration by giving concession in fees/upper age limit were merely an ‘aid to reservation’ and enabled the reserved candidate to participate with others in an open competition on merit.
Examining the facts of the present case, the Court stated that the decision in Jitendra Kumar (supra) was not founded on the general principles but on the interpretation of the relevant statute, as well as relevant government order and instructions regulating the selection process, which empowered the State Government to grant concessions in respect of age limit, fees for reserved categories.
Thus, the Court found that the ratio of in Jitendra Kumar (supra) was clearly distinguishable on facts as the recruitment process in the present case was regulated by office memorandum dated 01-07-1998 which barred the migration of a reserved candidate. Therefore, the Court held that the High Court erred in mechanically applying the ratio in Jitendra Kumar (supra) to the present case without appreciating the difference in the factual matrix of the present case with the cited authority. “Whether the general observations in Jitendra Kumar (supra) could be treated as a binding precedent in respect of recruitment process where such migration is not permitted is no longer res integra”.
Therefore, the Court opined that 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 the facts of each case.
Hence, the Court held that respondents had availed concession of age for participating in the recruitment process, in the teeth of office memorandum dated 01-07-1998; therefore, the High Court was wrong in applying the ratio in Jitendra Kumar (supra) and permitting them to be considered for appointment in the unreserved category. Consequently, the Court set aside the common impugned High Court judgment and allowed the appeals.
[Union of India v. Sajib Roy, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1943, decided on 9-9-2025]
*Judgment by Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Shailesh Madial, Adv. Ms. Priyanka Das, Adv. Mr. Apoorva Kurup, Adv. Mr. Rajan Kumar Chourasia, Adv. Mr. Mukul Singh, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Srivastav, Adv. Mr. Sharath Narayan Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Adv. Mr. Shreekant Neelappa Terdal, AOR
For Respondent(s): Dr. Nirmal Chopra, AOR Mr. T N. Singh, AOR Ms. Manika Tripathy, AOR Mr. Ashutosh Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi, AOR Mr. Jay Nirupam, Adv. Mr. D. Girish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pranav Giri, Adv. Mr. Ekansh Sisodia, Adv. Mr. Ritik Sharma, Adv.
