The Supreme Court of India, in a significant ruling, has held that reserved category candidates who avail relaxations such as in age or physical measurements cannot be appointed to unreserved or general category posts, even if they score more marks than the last selected general category candidate, if the specific recruitment rules contain an express bar against it.
A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi set aside a judgment of the Delhi High Court, which had directed the Railway Protection Force (RPF) to appoint such candidates to unreserved vacancies. The apex court clarified that the eligibility and appointment process is governed strictly by the stipulations in the employment notification and applicable service rules.
Background of the Case
The matter originated from an Employment Notice issued by the Railway Board on December 6, 2013, for filling up 659 posts (later enhanced to 763) in ancillary services of the RPF, such as Constable (Water Carrier), Constable (Safaiwala), and others. The notification prescribed an age limit of 18 to 25 years and specific physical measurements.
Relaxations in the upper age limit (5 years for SC/ST and 3 years for OBC) and concessions in physical measurements were provided for reserved category candidates. However, Clause 4(d)(v) of the notification explicitly stated, “No age relaxation is allowed to SC/ST/OBC candidates applying against unreserved vacancies.”
The respondents, Prem Chand Kumar and others, belonged to reserved categories and had availed these relaxations to participate in the selection process. They were not empanelled in the final list as they either failed to secure the minimum qualifying marks in the trade test or did not meet the cut-off for their respective reserved categories. Subsequently, they approached the High Court seeking appointment against unfilled vacancies, arguing that they had secured higher marks than the last selected candidate in the unreserved category.
Arguments Before the Courts
Before the High Court, the Railway Protection Force (appellants) contended that since the writ petitioners had availed relaxations, they could not be considered for unreserved category seats. They relied on Standing Order No. 85, dated March 5, 2009, which governs RPF recruitment. Paragraph 14(f) of this order states:
“Candidates from SC, ST and OBC categories selected purely on merit without availing any relaxation in age, physical measurements and Qualifying Marks in written test shall not be counted against vacancies reserved for such categories.”
The respondents-writ petitioners countered this by citing Standing Order No. 78, dated February 21, 2008, which they argued was applicable to ancillary services. Paragraph 14(b) of this order permitted reserved candidates with higher marks to be placed in the general merit list without mentioning any restrictions related to availing relaxations.
The High Court sided with the writ petitioners, holding that Standing Order No. 78 was applicable, and directed their appointment.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Decision
The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s finding by closely examining Revised Directive No. 29, dated December 6, 2013, which was issued in conjunction with the employment notice. The directive stated that for the recruitment of ancillary staff, “in partial modification of… Standing Order No. 78… procedure laid down in Standing Order-85… shall be applicable.”
The bench interpreted the phrase ‘partial modification’ to mean that provisions of Standing Order No. 85 would override any conflicting provisions in Standing Order No. 78. The Court found a direct conflict between Para 14(b) of Standing Order No. 78 (which permitted migration) and Para 14(f) of Standing Order No. 85 (which barred it for candidates availing relaxation).
In its judgment, the Court observed:
“A partial modification of the Standing Order No. 78 by Standing Order No. 85 would naturally have an overriding effect and Para 14(f) of the latter Standing Order will prevail over Para 14(b) of former Standing Order, putting an embargo on migration of reserved candidates who have availed relaxation of age and/or physical measurements to fill up unreserved vacancies, even if they have scored higher marks than the cut-off marks prescribed for the unreserved seats.”
The Court also noted that the High Court had “mechanically relied on Jitendra Kumar Singh vs. State of UP & Ors.” without appreciating the specific rules applicable in this case. Citing its own precedent in Union of India & Ors. vs. Sajib Roy, the Supreme Court reiterated the settled legal principle:
“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.”
Concluding that Standing Order No. 85 imposed a clear embargo, the Supreme Court allowed the RPF’s appeal and set aside the High Court’s order. “In light of the aforesaid discussion, particularly the bar envisaged in Standing Order No. 85 read with Revised Directive No. 29, we are of the view the High Court erred in directing the respondents-writ petitioners to be selected against the unreserved posts,” the bench ordered.
