The Supreme Court ruled that a reserved category candidate who avails relaxation in the Preliminary Examination cannot be considered selected on “General Standard” for cadre allocation. This holds true even if their final rank surpasses a General category candidate.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court determined that a candidate belonging to a reserved category who receives relaxation in the Preliminary Examination cannot be regarded as selected on “General Standard” for cadre allocation, irrespective of achieving a rank higher than a General category candidate on the final merit list.
A Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi set-aside the rulings of both the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Karnataka High Court, thereby upholding the Union Government’s directive that assigned a General category candidate to the Karnataka cadre instead of a more qualified Scheduled Caste (SC) candidate who utilized relaxed standards to qualify for the Preliminary Examination.
Also Read: Supreme Court Orders 30% Reservation for Women in Karnataka Bar Associations
This case originated from the 2013 Indian Forest Service (IFS) Examination. Respondent No. 1 was a Scheduled Caste candidate, while Respondent No. 3 belonged to the General category.
In the Preliminary Examination, the qualifying cutoff for General category candidates was 267 marks, whereas for SC candidates, it was 233 marks. Respondent No. 1 scored 247.18 marks, falling below the General cutoff but qualified for the Main Examination by availing the relaxation meant for SC candidates.
In contrast, Respondent No. 3 scored 270.68 marks and qualified under General standards. In the final merit list, prepared after the Written Main Examination and Personality Test, Respondent No. 1 ranked 19th, surpassing Respondent No. 3, who ranked 37th.
The disagreement arose during the cadre allocation process.
There were two vacancies in the Karnataka cadre: one for a ‘General Insider’ and another for an ‘OBC Outsider’. On March 13, 2015, the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC) notified that the ‘General Insider’ vacancy was assigned to Respondent No. 3, while Respondent No. 1 was placed in the Tamil Nadu cadre.
Unhappy with this outcome, Respondent No. 1 appealed to the Tribunal, asserting that he should be acknowledged as the more meritorious candidate deserving of the General Insider vacancy.
The Tribunal sided with him and directed the government to allocate the Karnataka vacancy to him. The High Court concurred, declaring that the Preliminary Examination merely served as a screening tool and that the scores should not hinder a more qualified candidate’s final allocation.
Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, representing the Union of India, argued that Rule 14 of the Exam Rules, 2013, prohibits reserving unreserved vacancies for candidates who have received relaxations at “any stage of the examination.”
He indicated that, since Respondent No. 1 utilized relaxation in the Preliminary Examination, he could not be classified as selected on “General Standards,” as required by Paragraph 9 of the Cadre Allocation Policy. Counsel for Respondent No. 3 supported this argument, citing Supreme Court decisions in Deepa E.V. v. Union of India and Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan.
Conversely, Senior Advocate Jayanth Muth Raj, representing Respondent No. 1, argued that the Preliminary Examination functions solely as a screening test and should not influence the final merit list.
He claimed that excluding a General Insider from a candidate with a superior final rank undermines the principles of meritocracy and substantive equality.
The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s view that “General Standards” in the Policy pertained only to the qualifying standards in the Main Examination.
The Bench reviewed Rules 1, 13, 14, and 17 of the Exam Rules, 2013, along with Paragraph 9 of the Allocation Policy. The Court underscored that while the Preliminary Examination is indeed a screening test, it represents an “integral stage” of the selection process.
The proviso to Rule 14(ii) explicitly states that reserved candidates recommended “without resorting to any relaxations/concessions in the eligibility or selection criteria, at any stage of the examination” cannot be adjusted against unreserved vacancies.
Justice Maheshwari, delivering the opinion of the Bench, remarked,
“The natural corollary to the above makes it clear those reserved category candidates who have availed of any relaxation or concession at ‘any stage of the examination’ are not eligible to be adjusted against unreserved vacancies.”
The Court asserted that benefiting from relaxation at the initial stage extends throughout the entire selection process, elaborating,
“Had the Respondent No. 1 been put against the general standard, his candidature would have been terminated at the first stage, i.e., the Preliminary Examination. His candidature succeeded in the first stage of the examination because of the relaxed standards… After availing the benefit of this relaxation for admission to the Main Examination, Respondent No. 1 cannot subsequently claim to have been selected on ‘General Standard’ merely due to his performance in the subsequent stages surpassed general standard.”
The Court referred to prior judgments, including Deepa E.V. v. Union of India (2017), which established that candidates who receive age relaxation cannot be adjusted against unreserved categories.
It also cited Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan (2018) and Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujarat Public Service Commission (2019), reinforcing the idea that initial-stage relaxation disqualifies a candidate from claiming unreserved vacancies.
The Bench distinguished the cases cited by the Respondent, noting that Jitendra Kumar Singh (2010) involved specific state instructions allowing migration to unreserved vacancies despite relaxation, which did not apply to the present case.
Also Read: Supreme Court Issues Notice on Disability Reservation in Promotions for Judicial Officers
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appeals made by the Union of India and the General category candidate, reversing the High Court’s and Tribunal’s decisions while reinstating the original notification dated March 13, 2015.
The Court concluded,
“We hold that Respondent No. 1, having availed the benefit of ‘Relaxed Standard’ in the Preliminary Examination, cannot be treated as a candidate selected on ‘General Standard’. Consequently, he is not entitled to be allocated against the ‘General Insider’ vacancy in the Karnataka Cadre in place of Respondent No. 3.”
Case Title: Union of India vs G. Kiran & Ors. (with connected appeal)
Read Attachment