Availing Physical Relaxation Doesn't Bar Reserved Candidate From General Category Selection If Rules Don't Forbid : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (Sep. 9) held that unless recruitment rules expressly prohibit, a reserved category candidate who avails relaxation in physical standards can still be appointed to an unreserved post if selected on merit.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the plea of a general category candidate who missed selection for CISF Assistant Commandant (Executive) by one mark, rejecting his challenge to a reserved category candidate's recruitment on a general post. The Court held that having availed relaxed physical standards under the ST category would not bar a candidate from subsequently claiming a general category seat if it qualify on merit.

In the 2017 recruitment drive, the appellant, a General category candidate, missed selection by one mark, scoring 363 against the cut-off of 364. He challenged the selection of an ST candidate with 366 marks who, despite filling a general post, had availed relaxed height standards meant for ST candidates. The appellant argued that such a candidate should be considered only against an ST-reserved vacancy, leaving the unreserved seat open for him.

The judgment authored by Justice Bagchi noted that since the CISF governing memorandum did not explicitly mention "physical measurements" as a bar for migration to the unreserved category, therefore, it rejected the Appellant's plea against the recruitment of the reserved category candidate to the general post.

“We are fortified to come to such conclusion as office memo dated 01.07.1998 does not expressly state relaxed concessions in physical measurements availed by a reserved candidate would disentitle the candidate from being considered for appointment under general category if he has scored higher than the cut-off marks in such category.”, the court observed.

Further, the Court said that, unlike the rules in a similar case involving the Railway Protection Force & Ors. v. Prem Chand Kumar & Ors. SLP (C) No.20866/2019 (decided simultaneously), the CISF governing memorandum did not explicitly mention "physical measurements" as a bar for migration to the unreserved category.

“It may not be out of place to note that the present office memorandum does not expressly refer to relaxation in physical standards unlike Clause 14(f) of the Standing Order No.85 which is applicable to recruitment of Railway Protection Force, dealt by us in Railway Protection Force & Ors. v. Prem Chand Kumar & Ors.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: UMA SHANKAR GURJAR VS. UNION OF INDIA, SLP (C) No. 28469/2019

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 886

Click here to read/download the judgment

APPEARANCE:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. A Mariarputham, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mayilsamy K, Adv. Dr. Gayathiri A S, Adv. Mr. Arun Pandiyan S, Adv. Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, AOR Mr. Sudarshan Lamba, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mrs. Saumya Tandon, Adv. Mr. B K Satija, Adv. Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv. Mr. Arkaj Kumar, Adv. Mr. Pratyush Srivastva, Adv. Mr. T S Sabrish, Adv. Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Mahavir Singh, Sr. Adv. Mr. Aneesh Mittal, AOR Mrs. Juhi Arora, Adv. Ms. Komal Mittal, Adv. Mr. Maasir Javed, Adv. Mr. Virender Singh, Adv. Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, AOR Mr. Kumar Kshitij, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Dwivedi, Adv. Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, AOR Ms. Chitrangda Rastravara, Adv. Mr. Abhijeet Singh, Adv. Mr. Anirudh Singh, Adv. Mr. Aishwary Mishra, Adv. Mr. Dhananjai Shekhwat, Adv. Ms. Anjali Saxena, Adv. Ms. Sakshi Aggarwal, Adv. Mr. Dashrath Singh, Adv. Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, AOR Mr. Hrishikesh Baruah, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Dwivedi, Adv.

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