The Supreme Court ruled that reserved candidates cannot later claim general seats if recruitment rules bar it, clarifying eligibility and migration in government job selection.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has once again addressed the issue of whether reserved category candidates who avail of age relaxation can later compete for general category vacancies. In a ruling delivered on Tuesday, the Court held that such candidates cannot be considered against unreserved category posts if the recruitment rules expressly prohibit such migration.
The Case Background
The case arose from a Staff Selection Commission (SSC) recruitment process for constables. The prescribed age limit was 18–23 years, with a three-year relaxation for OBC candidates. Certain OBC candidates, including Sanjib Roy and others, applied under the reserved category by using this age relaxation. Although they scored higher than the last selected general category candidate, they were still not selected since their marks were below those of the last selected OBC candidate.
The candidates approached the High Court, which ruled in their favour, stating they should be considered for unreserved seats based on merit. However, the Centre challenged this verdict before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi set aside the High Court’s ruling. The apex court pointed to an Office Memorandum dated July 1, 1998, which explicitly bars SC/ST/OBC candidates who have availed relaxations in age limit, experience qualification, or the number of attempts in written exams from being considered against unreserved vacancies.
The Court made the following observations:
- Rules are decisive: Eligibility and appointment must strictly follow the recruitment notification and applicable service rules.
- Migration depends on conditions: If the recruitment rules/employment notification do not prohibit migration, reserved candidates who score higher than the last unreserved candidate can be appointed to general category seats.
- OM of 1998 prevails: In this particular case, since the Office Memorandum prohibited such migration, the candidates could not claim unreserved seats.
ALSO READ: “No Reservation Needed for…” India’s New CJI BR Gavai makes bold statement on Reservation
High Court’s Rulings
The High Court had relied on the Jitendra Kumar Singh vs State of UP (2010) judgment, where the Supreme Court had allowed reserved category candidates to migrate to general seats.
However, the present Bench clarified that the Jitendra Kumar Singh ruling was based on a specific statutory framework in Uttar Pradesh, which explicitly permitted such migration. In contrast, the current case was governed by the 1998 Office Memorandum, which imposed restrictions.
Case Title:
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE VS PREM CHAND KUMAR
SLP (C) No.20866/2019
Read Judgment:
Click Here to Read More On Justice B.R. Gavai