Reserved Category Candidates Availing Age Relaxation Barred From Migrating To General Category Seats If Rules Forbid : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (Sep.9) observed that reserved category candidates who avail age relaxation to apply under the reserved category cannot later be considered for selection against unreserved (general) category vacancies if the recruitment rules explicitly prohibit such migration.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi heard the case that arose from a Staff Selection Commission (“SSC”) recruitment for Constable (GD) posts, where the age limit was 18–23 years with a three-year relaxation for OBC candidates. The respondents applied as OBC candidates, using this relaxation to qualify. Although they scored higher than the last selected general category candidate, they were ranked lower than the last selected OBC candidate and thus were not appointed.

They approached the High Court, which ruled in their favour, holding that they should be considered for unreserved seats based on merit. Following this, the Union of India approached the Supreme Court.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Bagchi held that the HC had wrongly relied on Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of UP (2010). The Court noted that Jitendra Kumar Singh was based on a specific Uttar Pradesh statutory framework that allowed such migration, whereas in the present case, the Office Memorandum expressly barred candidates who availed relaxations from being considered for unreserved vacancies.

“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.”, the Court held.

The Court also referred to Saurav Yadav v. State of UP (2020), clarifying that candidates can only be migrated to unreserved seats when no special concession has been availed and no bar exists in the recruitment framework. Since a bar to migration existed in the present case, the Court overturned the High Court's decision and denied the migration to the Respondents to the general seats.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: UNION OF INDIA & ORS. VERSUS SAJIB ROY

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 881

Click here to read/download the judgment

Appearance:

Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, senior counsel argued for the appellants

Dr. Nirmal Chopra and Ms. Manika Tripathy, counsels argued for the respondents-writ petitioners.