The Supreme Court has ruled that a reserved category candidate who avails relaxation in the Preliminary Examination cannot be treated as a candidate selected on “General Standard” for the purpose of cadre allocation, even if they secure a higher rank than a General category candidate in the final merit list.
A Bench comprising Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi set aside the concurrent findings of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and the Karnataka High Court, upholding the Union Government’s notification allocating the Karnataka cadre to a General category candidate instead of a more meritorious Scheduled Caste (SC) candidate who had qualified the Preliminary Examination on relaxed standards.
Background of the Dispute
The case arose from the Indian Forest Service (IFS) Examination, 2013. Respondent No. 1, a Scheduled Caste candidate, and Respondent No. 3, a General category candidate, appeared for the examination.
In the Preliminary Examination, the qualifying cut-off for General Category candidates was 267 marks, while for SC candidates it was 233 marks. Respondent No. 1 secured 247.18 marks—below the General cut-off—but qualified for the Main Examination by availing the relaxed standard applicable to SC candidates. Respondent No. 3 secured 270.68 marks, qualifying on General standards.
However, in the final merit list prepared after the Main Examination (Written) and Personality Test, Respondent No. 1 secured Rank 19, placing him higher than Respondent No. 3, who secured Rank 37.
The controversy emerged during cadre allocation. There were two vacancies in the Karnataka cadre: one ‘General Insider’ and one ‘OBC Outsider’. The Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (MoEFCC), vide notification dated March 13, 2015, allocated the ‘General Insider’ vacancy to Respondent No. 3. Respondent No. 1 was allocated the Tamil Nadu cadre.
Aggrieved, Respondent No. 1 approached the Tribunal, arguing that as a more meritorious candidate, he should be treated as a General candidate for cadre allocation. The Tribunal allowed the application, directing the government to allocate the Karnataka vacancy to him. The High Court affirmed this view, holding that since the Preliminary Examination was merely a screening test, marks obtained therein should not disadvantage a meritorious candidate in final allocation.
Arguments Before the Court
Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, appearing for the Union of India, argued that Rule 14 of the Exam Rules, 2013, bars the adjustment of reserved category candidates against unreserved vacancies if they have availed relaxation at “any stage of the examination.” He contended that since Respondent No. 1 availed relaxation in the Preliminary Examination, he could not be considered as selected on “General Standards” as required under Paragraph 9 of the Cadre Allocation Policy.
Counsel for Respondent No. 3 supported this stance, relying on Supreme Court judgments in Deepa E.V. v. Union of India and Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan.
Conversely, Senior Advocate Jayanth Muth Raj, appearing for Respondent No. 1, argued that the Preliminary Examination is only a screening test and its marks do not count towards the final order of merit. He submitted that denying a General Insider vacancy to a candidate with a higher final rank violates the principles of meritocracy and substantive equality.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s reasoning that “General Standards” in the Policy referred only to the qualifying standard in the Main Examination. The Bench examined Rules 1, 13, 14, and 17 of the Exam Rules, 2013, alongside Paragraph 9 of the Allocation Policy.
The Court observed that while the Preliminary Examination is a screening test, it is 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” shall not be adjusted against reserved vacancies.
Justice Maheshwari, writing for the Bench, observed:
“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 held that availing relaxation at the initial stage amounts to availing it for the entire process. The judgment stated:
“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 the general standard.”
Judicial Precedents
The Court relied on its earlier decision in Deepa E.V. v. Union of India (2017), which held that when a candidate avails age relaxation, they are not entitled to be adjusted against the unreserved category. It also cited Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan (2018) and Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujarat Public Service Commission (2019) to reinforce the principle that relaxation at the initial stage bars a candidate from claiming unreserved vacancies.
The Bench distinguished the cases relied upon by the Respondent, noting that Jitendra Kumar Singh (2010) involved specific state instructions allowing migration to unreserved vacancies despite relaxation, which was not applicable in the present case.
Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the Union of India and the General category candidate. It set aside the orders of the High Court and the Tribunal, restoring 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 Details
Case Title: Union of India vs G. Kiran & Ors. (with connected appeal)
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 4743 of 2020)
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
