The Delhi High Court held that ex-servicemen who use age relaxation to qualify for recruitment cannot claim unreserved vacancies on merit. It added that candidates taking category concessions cannot simultaneously seek unreserved consideration during shortlisting or selection process.
The Delhi High Court ruled that ex-servicemen who use age relaxation to enter a recruitment process cannot claim consideration for unreserved vacancies based on higher merit.
The Court stated that candidates who rely on a category-specific concession to meet eligibility cannot simultaneously seek treatment as unreserved candidates for shortlisting or selection.
Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed several writ petitions filed by ex-servicemen who challenged their exclusion from the list of candidates invited for document verification for Non-Executive positions with the Airports Authority of India in the Northern Region.
The petitioners argued that, despite achieving scores higher than the last candidate selected in the unreserved category, they were not called for document verification, claiming this exclusion was arbitrary and ignored merit.
The recruitment process allowed for horizontal reservation for ex-servicemen. The petitioners contended that unreserved vacancies should be filled solely based on merit, regardless of category.
They highlighted that candidates from the ex-servicemen category were called in descending order of scores, ranging from 81 to 66, while the cut-off for the unreserved category was 59.
They asserted that their scores were sufficient to qualify for the unreserved pool and believed they were entitled to migrate into that category for shortlisting purposes.
The Airports Authority of India countered that the petitioners exceeded the upper-age limit set for unreserved candidates and could only participate in the recruitment by utilizing the age relaxation available to ex-servicemen.
The Court referred to the Department of Personnel and Training’s policy framework, which acknowledges horizontal reservation for ex-servicemen but states that an ex-serviceman in the unreserved category can only be considered for unreserved positions if they satisfy all eligibility conditions without relying on any relaxation.
It was established that once age relaxation is utilized, candidates can only be considered within the ex-servicemen quota.
The Court analyzed the legal distinction in reservation jurisprudence between vertical reservations based on social categories and horizontal reservations intended for specific classes. The central issue was whether candidates who had availed themselves of age relaxation could still claim consideration for unreserved vacancies based on their marks.
The Court responded negatively, concluding that the petitioners were attempting to gain a dual advantage: first, by becoming eligible through a relaxation not available to unreserved candidates, and second, by seeking treatment as unreserved candidates for shortlisting and selection.
The Court observed that since the petitioners admitted to exceeding the age limit for the unreserved category, the legal implications followed.
A candidate who enters the competitive field by utilizing a category-linked concession cannot demand to be treated equally to unreserved candidates who meet the eligibility criteria without such a relaxation.
Granting such a claim would result in unequal treatment and disrupt the intended allocation of vacancies.
The Court rejected the petitioners’ reliance on legal precedents regarding migration in horizontal reservation cases, explaining that the distinction made in the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission pertains to adjustments made after the selection list is created. It does not obligate the appointing authority to categorize a candidate as unreserved if they entered the competition with concessions not available to unreserved candidates.
Furthermore, the principle that horizontal reservation intersects with vertical categories assumes that all candidates compared in the unreserved pool are similarly positioned concerning eligibility. When a candidate’s participation is contingent on a relaxation unavailable to unreserved candidates, the competitive environment is no longer equitable.
Allowing such candidates to be counted among unreserved vacancies would undermine the policy objective of providing a limited rehabilitative quota for ex-servicemen and would skew the distribution of posts.
Ultimately, the Court determined that the petitioners could not transition to the unreserved category after utilizing age relaxation and found no arbitrariness in their exclusion from the document verification list, thus dismissing the writ petitions.
Case Title: Gaurav Verma & Ors. v. Airports Authority of India & Anr.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
