SC: Reserved Candidates Using Relaxations Can’t Claim General Posts If Rules Bar It
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court has clarified that reserved category candidates who avail relaxations—such as age limit or physical measurement concessions—cannot be appointed to general category posts if the recruitment rules expressly prohibit it, even if they score higher than the last selected general category candidate.
A bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi set aside a Delhi High Court order that had directed the Railway Protection Force (RPF) to appoint such candidates to unreserved vacancies. The Court stressed that eligibility and appointments must strictly follow the employment notification and service rules.
Case Background
The dispute stemmed from a 2013 Railway Board notification to fill 763 posts in ancillary services like Constable (Water Carrier) and Constable (Safaiwala). While the notice allowed relaxations for SC/ST and OBC candidates, it explicitly barred them from using those relaxations to claim unreserved seats.
The petitioners, belonging to reserved categories, had availed age and physical concessions but later argued that they should be considered for unfilled general seats since they scored more than the last selected general candidate.
Courtroom Arguments
RPF’s stand: Once relaxations are taken, candidates cannot migrate to general seats, as per Standing Order No. 85 (2009).
Petitioners’ stand: They relied on Standing Order No. 78 (2008), which allowed migration to the general list without restrictions.
Delhi HC ruling: Favoured petitioners, holding that Standing Order No. 78 applied.
Supreme Court’s Reasoning
The apex court found that Revised Directive No. 29 (2013) made Standing Order No. 85 applicable to the recruitment. Since Clause 14(f) of Standing Order No. 85 barred migration if relaxations were availed, it overrode the earlier Standing Order No. 78.
The bench emphasized:
If rules permit, reserved candidates scoring higher can be placed in the general list.
But where rules explicitly bar migration, they must be respected.
The Court noted that the High Court had mechanically relied on earlier judgments without appreciating the specific embargo in RPF rules.
Verdict
Concluding that the bar in Standing Order No. 85 was binding, the Supreme Court allowed the RPF’s appeal and set aside the Delhi HC order.
The ruling reinforces a key principle: merit migration is possible only when rules allow it—relaxations cannot become a backdoor to unreserved seats if recruitment laws say otherwise.
AdvoTalks : Justice Gets Easy - YouTube
AdvoTalks : Justice Gets Easy - YouTube
