Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by the Union of India and set aside the High Court’s directions permitting OBC candidates who had availed age relaxation to be considered in the unreserved category. The Court held that Office Memorandum dated 01.07.1998 expressly bars SC/ST/OBC candidates who have availed relaxations in age, experience, qualification, or number of attempts from being considered against unreserved vacancies.
The Court clarified that migration of reserved candidates to unreserved seats is permissible only where recruitment rules do not prohibit it. Since the writ petitioners had availed age relaxation, they were ineligible to be appointed against unreserved posts. The High Court’s reliance on Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of UP was distinguished and held inapplicable.
Facts
The Staff Selection Commission (SSC) issued a recruitment notification in 2015 for Constables (GD) in BSF, CRPF, ITBP, SSB, NIA, SSF, and Rifleman in Assam Rifles. The prescribed age limit was 18–23 years, with OBC candidates entitled to 3 years relaxation.
The writ petitioners applied under the OBC category and availed this age relaxation. Although they scored higher than the last selected general category candidates, they fell short of the OBC cut-off. They approached the High Court seeking appointment under the unreserved category.
The High Court allowed their claim, holding that concessions in age and fees are merely “aids to reservation” that do not affect merit-based selection, relying on Jitendra Kumar Singh (2010). The Union of India sought review, producing the 1998 Office Memorandum which specifically barred such migration. The High Court dismissed the review, leading to the present appeals.
Issues
- Whether reserved candidates who availed age relaxation could migrate to unreserved seats when they scored higher than the last unreserved candidate.
- Whether the High Court erred in applying Jitendra Kumar Singh without considering the binding effect of the 1998 Office Memorandum.
- Whether migration is a general principle of equality or contingent on the recruitment rules governing a particular selection process.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The Union of India argued that the 1998 Office Memorandum imposed a clear embargo: reserved candidates availing age relaxation or other concessions must be counted against reserved vacancies only. The High Court erred in overlooking this.
It was contended that Jitendra Kumar Singh was decided in the context of Uttar Pradesh’s 1994 Reservation Act and Government Orders, which expressly allowed migration. That ratio could not be mechanically extended to recruitments governed by a contrary rule.
The petitioners stressed that the respondents had knowingly applied under the OBC category with age relaxation and were bound by the rules.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents contended that once they scored higher than the last unreserved candidate, denying them general category seats violated Articles 14 and 16. They relied on Jitendra Kumar Singh, where the Court held that concessions in age or fees are only eligibility relaxations and do not upset the “level playing field.”
They argued that the 1998 Office Memorandum was unfair, as it excluded meritorious candidates from competing in the open category. They also cited cases like Vikas Sankhala, Saurav Yadav, Ajithkumar, and Sadhana Singh Dangi, to emphasise that merit should prevail and higher-scoring reserved candidates should be adjusted against unreserved seats.
Analysis of the Law
The Court emphasised that migration is not an absolute right but depends on recruitment rules. Where rules or notifications bar migration, reserved candidates who avail concessions cannot claim unreserved seats.
The 1998 OM expressly clarified that SC/ST/OBC candidates selected on relaxed standards (age, attempts, qualification, etc.) must be counted against reserved vacancies. Thus, unlike in Jitendra Kumar Singh, where government orders permitted migration, the present case was covered by an express prohibition.
The Court reiterated Lord Halsbury’s principle in Quinn v. Leathem that precedents must be read in context and not treated as universal rules. It also quoted Haryana Financial Corporation v. Jagdamba Oil Mills, cautioning against blind reliance on precedents without considering factual differences.
Precedent Analysis
- Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of UP (2010) 3 SCC 119 – Allowed migration where U.P. rules expressly permitted it. Distinguished as inapplicable here.
- Deepa E.V. v. Union of India (2017) 12 SCC 680 – Applied the 1998 OM to hold that reserved candidates availing concessions cannot migrate. Relied on directly.
- Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan (2018) 11 SCC 352 – Held that where circulars prohibit migration, Jitendra Kumar cannot apply.
- Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana (2019) 7 SCC 383 – Reiterated the embargo under recruitment rules.
- Pradeep Kumar (2019) 10 SCC 120 – Affirmed the same principle through a three-judge bench.
On the other side, respondents relied on:
- Vikas Sankhala (2017) 1 SCC 350 – Held relaxation in TET qualifying marks was not a concession affecting migration.
- Saurav Yadav (2021) 4 SCC 542 – Allowed OBC women to migrate to general women’s quota, since no prohibition existed.
- Sadhana Singh Dangi (2022) 12 SCC 401 – Applied Saurav Yadav principles in horizontal reservation.
- BSNL v. Sandeep Chaudhary (2022) 11 SCC 779 – Permitted migration as no special concession was given.
The Court harmonised these by holding that the permissibility of migration always depends on the existence or absence of an embargo in recruitment rules.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court observed that the High Court erred in transplanting the ratio of Jitendra Kumar Singh without appreciating that it was rooted in a different statutory framework. Here, the 1998 OM created a clear bar.
It reasoned: “Whether a reserved candidate availing age relaxation may be recruited against unreserved seats depends on the facts of each case and the governing rules. If rules impose an embargo, such migration is impermissible.”
Since the respondents had availed age relaxation and the OM barred their adjustment against unreserved vacancies, the High Court’s order was unsustainable.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgments dated 12.10.2018 and 26.02.2019. It held that reserved candidates who availed age relaxation cannot be migrated to unreserved category seats under the 1998 OM.
The appeals of the Union of India were allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
Implications
This judgment provides clarity on recruitment disputes involving migration of reserved candidates:
- Confirms that migration is conditional, not absolute, and depends on the recruitment rules or notifications.
- Strengthens the binding force of the 1998 OM, ensuring consistency across central recruitments.
- Cautions High Courts against mechanical reliance on precedents without considering contextual differences.
It reassures general category candidates of a fair playing field while affirming the integrity of rule-based recruitment.
FAQs
Q1. Can OBC candidates availing age relaxation migrate to unreserved seats?
No. The 1998 Office Memorandum expressly bars such migration unless recruitment rules provide otherwise.
Q2. Why was Jitendra Kumar Singh held inapplicable here?
Because it was decided under U.P.’s 1994 Act and government orders that permitted migration, unlike the 1998 OM which prohibits it.
Q3. What is the key takeaway from this judgment?
That migration to unreserved seats is not a universal principle but depends strictly on the recruitment rules governing each selection.
