4.5/5
Supreme Court Verdict on Reservation: No General Seats for Reserved Candidates
Supreme Court Verdict on Reservation: No General Seats for Reserved Candidates
What the Case Was About
-
The issue came up in various recruitments (e.g. Staff Selection Commission Constable (GD), Railway Protection Force ancillary roles etc.) where reserved category candidates (SC/ST/OBC) availed relaxations (in age, physical measurements etc.) under reservation rules.
-
Some of these candidates, despite availing relaxations, scored higher than the last selected candidate from the general/unreserved category in those recruitments. They then claimed they should be “migrated” to (i.e. considered for) unreserved seats based on merit.
-
High Courts in some cases had granted relief, ordering that such reserved candidates be appointed against unreserved vacancies.
What the Supreme Court Decided
The Supreme Court (bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi) clarified and held:
-
Rules or Notification Matter ("Embargo")If the recruitment rules / employment notification explicitly prohibit reserved‐category candidates who have availed relaxations (like age, physical standards) from being considered for unreserved / general seats, then those candidates cannot migrate to general seats — even if they have higher marks than the last general‐category selected candidate.
-
If No Such Prohibition ExistsIf the recruitment rules do not contain such a bar or embargo, then a reserved category candidate who has scored higher than the cut-off or last selected general candidate may be eligible to be considered for unreserved positions. It depends on the specific facts of the case.
-
Which Provisions AppliedIn the specific case with RPF / Railway Protection Force, the Court referred to Standing Order No. 85 (which has Para 14(f)) that imposes the embargo. It also noted that Standing Order No. 85 overrode earlier Standing Order No. 78 which had more permissive terms. Therefore, for that recruitment, those who availed age or physical relaxations were ineligible for general seats.
-
Precedent Case (Jitendra Kumar Singh vs State of UP, 2010)The Court pointed out that while in Jitendra Kumar Singh (2010) the SC held that relaxations in age or fees etc., granted to reserved category candidates, do not bar them from being considered for unreserved vacancies if they meet the general criteria, that decision must yield to later rules/notifications that expressly limit or bar such migration. In other words, precedents like Jitendra Kumar apply only insofar as the recruitment rules allow.
Important Implications / “Take‐Away” Points
-
Merit alone is not sufficient; rules are fundamental
Even if a reserved candidate gets more marks than the last selected general candidate, that does not automatically entitle them to general seats. The recruitment rules/notification must not have a clause barring them. -
Clarity in notifications/rules is essential
Either the rules allow such migration, or they impose an embargo. The difference determines outcome. Candidates & recruiters must read the rules carefully. -
Precedence of later rules over earlier ones
If a later rule (notification / standing order / office memorandum) imposes a restriction, it can override earlier more permissive ones. -
Effect on legal/constitutional arguments of equality & fairness
The reasoning is grounded in constitutional provisions (Equality under Article 14 / equality of opportunity under Article 16), but these rights are balanced with legislative or executive regulations that explicitly define eligibility.
2 likes |
0 comment
