Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court delivered two connected rulings.
- In the Railway Protection Force (RPF) recruitment case, the Court allowed the appeals filed by the RPF and set aside the High Court’s direction to appoint SC/ST/OBC candidates against unreserved vacancies. It held that Standing Order No. 85 (2009), read with Revised Directive No. 29 (2013), barred reserved candidates who availed relaxation in age or physical measurements from being considered in the unreserved category, even if they scored higher than the last unreserved candidate
RAILWAY - In the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) recruitment case, the Court dismissed the appeal of a general category candidate who challenged the selection of an ST candidate with relaxed height standards. It upheld the High Court’s view that the 1998 Office Memorandum restricting migration applied only to relaxed standards like age, qualifications, or attempts, but not to physical standards such as height or weight. Hence, reserved candidates qualifying on merit despite availing lower height standards could still be selected against unreserved seats.
Facts
In the RPF case, an employment notice in 2013 advertised 763 posts of ancillary staff (constable trades such as water carrier, washerman, barber, tailor, etc.). Candidates had to meet age and physical standards, with relaxations for SC/ST/OBCs. While reserved category petitioners scored higher than the unreserved cut-off, they had availed relaxations. The High Court allowed their petitions, holding that Standing Order No. 78 (2008) permitted migration to unreserved seats.
In the CISF case, a general category candidate missed selection by one mark. He challenged the inclusion of an ST candidate (with height relaxation) in the unreserved list, relying on Office Memoranda of 1989, 1997, and 1998, which prohibited migration of reserved candidates selected on relaxed standards. The Delhi High Court rejected his claim, clarifying that physical standards do not fall within “relaxed standards” under the OM.
Issues
- Whether reserved candidates availing relaxation in age or physical measurements can migrate to unreserved seats in RPF recruitment.
- Whether lower physical standards like height relaxation constitute “relaxed standards” under the 1998 Office Memorandum, disentitling reserved candidates from unreserved seats in CISF recruitment.
- Whether High Courts erred in their interpretation of Standing Orders and Office Memoranda in the respective cases.
Petitioner’s Arguments
In the RPF case, the appellants (Railway authorities) argued that Standing Order No. 85 superseded Standing Order No. 78 for ancillary recruitment. Clause 14(f) of SO 85 expressly barred reserved candidates availing relaxations from being adjusted against unreserved vacancies. The High Court wrongly applied SO 78, ignoring the “partial modification” effected by Revised Directive No. 29.
In the CISF case, the appellant (general category candidate) argued that the 1998 OM applied, and “relaxed standards” should include height, weight, and other physical concessions. Since the ST candidate had availed lower height norms, he could not be considered under unreserved category despite scoring higher marks.
Respondent’s Arguments
In the RPF case, the respondents contended that Standing Order No. 78 continued to govern ancillary services and permitted migration. They argued that the phrase “partial modification” in Directive No. 29 meant SO 78 was not wholly superseded, so Para 14(b) (allowing migration) survived.
In the CISF case, UPSC and Union of India argued that physical standards vary with gender and ethnicity and are not comparable to relaxations in age, attempts, or qualifications. They stressed that otherwise, no women or tribal candidates would ever be selected in general category despite meeting cut-offs. Thus, the ST candidate’s inclusion in general merit was valid.
Analysis of the Law
The Court noted the different frameworks:
- RPF Recruitment: Standing Order No. 85 expressly imposed an embargo on reserved candidates availing relaxations from migrating to unreserved seats. This directly conflicted with Standing Order No. 78. By virtue of Revised Directive No. 29, SO 85 prevailed. Thus, the High Court erred in applying SO 78.
- CISF Recruitment: The Court distinguished between eligibility relaxations (age, qualifications, attempts) and physical standards (height, chest, weight), holding the latter are “enlistment standards”, tailored for gender and race, and not “relaxed standards” under the OM. Hence, the ST candidate was rightly selected in unreserved category.
Precedent Analysis
- Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC 119 – Allowed migration of reserved candidates where rules did not bar it. Distinguished, as SO 85 imposed an embargo.
- Union of India v. Sajib Roy (2019) – Held migration depends on recruitment rules; if rules bar it, migration not allowed. Relied upon in RPF case.
- Deepa E.V. v. Union of India (2017) 12 SCC 680, Niravkumar Makwana (2019) 7 SCC 383, Pradeep Kumar (2019) 10 SCC 120 – Applied the 1998 OM to bar migration where reserved candidates availed relaxed age/attempts. Distinguished here as those cases did not involve physical standards.
- Hindustan Petroleum Corp. v. Dilbahar Singh (2014) 9 SCC 78 – Limited scope of revisional interference; cited in parallel context.
These precedents clarified that the permissibility of migration depends strictly on recruitment rules and the nature of relaxation.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court reasoned that migration to unreserved seats is not a constitutional right but a matter governed by recruitment rules. In RPF recruitment, SO 85 created a clear bar, so reserved candidates availing relaxations could not migrate. In CISF recruitment, physical standards are not “relaxed standards”, hence reserved candidates with lower height requirements could still migrate if they otherwise met cut-offs.
The Court remarked: “Whether reserved candidates may be recruited against unreserved seats depends on the facts of each case and the governing recruitment rules.”
Conclusion
The Supreme Court:
- Allowed the RPF appeals, restoring the bar on migration under SO 85, and set aside the High Court’s directions for appointments.
- Dismissed the CISF appeal, affirming the High Court’s view that relaxed physical standards do not bar migration, upholding the ST candidate’s selection.
This dual ruling harmonises the law: migration is permissible only when recruitment rules do not impose an embargo, and physical standards are not treated as relaxed concessions under the 1998 OM.
Implications
This judgment has wide implications for public service recruitment:
- Confirms that reserved candidates who avail relaxations in age/qualification cannot claim unreserved seats if rules bar it.
- Clarifies that physical standards like height are not “relaxed standards” under OMs and do not prevent migration to general seats.
- Reinforces that recruitment is rule-bound; fairness and clarity in Standing Orders and OMs are essential to avoid litigation.
It balances equality of opportunity with the need to respect statutory recruitment frameworks.
FAQs
Q1. Can reserved candidates migrate to unreserved seats after availing relaxations?
Yes, but only if recruitment rules or notifications do not impose an express bar. If rules like SO 85 prohibit it, migration is not allowed.
Q2. Do physical standards like height or chest count as “relaxed standards” under the 1998 OM?
No. The Court clarified they are enlistment standards varying by gender or race, not relaxations like age or qualification.
Q3. What is the key takeaway of this judgment?
That migration to unreserved seats depends strictly on recruitment rules, and while age/qualification relaxations bar migration, physical standards do not.
