Court Holds Migration To Unreserved Posts Depends On Recruitment Rules; Bar In Office Memorandum Prevents Consideration

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard appeals by the Union of India challenging a common judgment of the High Court that had directed that reserved OBC candidates who had availed age relaxation be considered for appointment against unreserved vacancies after scoring higher than the last selected unreserved candidate.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned High Court orders dated 12.10.2018 and 26.02.2019. The Court held that whether a reserved candidate who had availed concessions such as age relaxation could be recruited against unreserved vacancies depended on the factual and regulatory matrix of the recruitment exercise. The Court observed that the decision in Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of UP, which treated relaxations as an “aid to reservation” that did not upset the “level-playing field”, was distinguishable where a statutory or administrative bar existed. The Court noted that precedents must be read in their factual context and that an office memorandum dated 01.07.1998 placed a clear embargo: where a relaxed standard (for example in age, experience or number of chances) was applied, such SC/ST/OBC candidates “would be deemed as unavailable for consideration against unreserved vacancies.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "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. That is to say, in the event 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." The Court therefore concluded that the High Court had erred in mechanically applying Jitendra Kumar Singh where the Office Memorandum of 01.07.1998 applied.

Background The dispute arose from a Staff Selection Commission recruitment notification for Constables (GD) and Riflemen in various central forces with the prescribed age limit 18–23 years as on 01.08.2015 and a 3-year age relaxation for OBC candidates. Several OBC candidates availed the age relaxation, participated in the selection process and scored marks higher than the last selected candidate in the unreserved category but lower than the last selected OBC candidate. The petitioners sought migration to unreserved vacancies; the Union resisted on the ground that by availing age relaxation they became ineligible for adjustment against unreserved posts.

The High Court allowed the writ petitions relying on Jitendra Kumar Singh, treating age relaxation as incidental to enable participation in open competition and as not affecting the level playing field. The Union placed on record the Department of Personnel & Training Office Memorandum dated 01.07.1998 which clarified that where a relaxed standard was applied for reserved category candidates (age, experience, number of chances, etc.), such candidates were to be counted against reserved vacancies and would be "deemed unavailable for consideration against unreserved vacancies." The High Court declined to review its order, and the matter reached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court analysed authority including Jitendra Kumar Singh, Deepa E. V. v. Union of India and other decisions of coordinate Benches. It held that Jitendra Kumar was grounded in a particular statutory and administrative scheme and could not be extended where recruitment rules or government orders expressly barred migration. Applying that principle to the present facts and the 01.07.1998 Office Memorandum, the Court concluded the High Court was wrong to permit migration; the appeals were allowed, the impugned orders set aside and pending applications disposed of. No interim relief was retained.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 1084 (Civil Appeal Nos. /2025 @ SLP (C) Nos.21392-21393/2019; 21394-21395/2019; 21926-21927/2019; 22432-22433/2019) Case Title: Union of India & Ors. v. Sajib Roy Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Shailesh Madiyal (Senior Counsel) For the Respondent(s): Dr. Nirmal Chopra; Mr. Shubhranshu Padhi; Ms. Manika Tripathy (learned counsel)