Once You Avail Age Relaxation, You Belong to the Reserved Pool — You Cannot Switch Back to General Category — Supreme Court Overrules High Court on OBC Candidate Selection

“Where Administrative Rules Create a Bar, Merit Alone Cannot Override the Legal Embargo” — On September 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of India decisively ruled that OBC candidates who avail age relaxation cannot be considered for selection under the unreserved category, even if their marks exceed the general cut-off. The Court reversed the Calcutta High Court’s decision that had allowed such crossover, citing binding administrative instructions that explicitly barred migration from reserved to unreserved category in such circumstances.

This landmark ruling settles the long-debated question of whether merit alone is enough for reserved category candidates to be considered in the general list when they have enjoyed any reservation-linked advantage, such as age relaxation.

“Crossover Based on Merit Is Not a Right Where the Rules Say Otherwise” — Supreme Court Upholds Office Memorandum’s Authority Over Equitable Considerations

The case concerned the recruitment of Constables (GD) in paramilitary forces through a Staff Selection Commission (SSC) exam. Some OBC candidates, who availed the 3-year age relaxation, scored higher than the last selected general category candidate, but were still not selected, having failed to make the cut in the OBC list. They approached the Calcutta High Court, which permitted them to be included in the general category based on their marks.

The High Court had relied heavily on the Supreme Court’s precedent in Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. to rule that availing relaxation did not disqualify them from general category selection, so long as their selection was based on merit.

The Union of India challenged this reasoning, relying on the Office Memorandum dated 01.07.1998, which had a clear embargo:

“Where a candidate belonging to SC/ST/OBC, who is selected on the basis of relaxed standards, such candidate shall be counted against the reserved vacancy and not the general vacancy.”

The Supreme Court held that this administrative instruction was binding and the High Court had no authority to override it.

“Merit Cannot Trump Law: A Reserved Candidate Availing Concessions Cannot Claim Unreserved Seat in Violation of Rules” — Apex Court Distinguishes Earlier Judgments

The bench, led by Justice Joymalya Bagchi, clarified that the Jitendra Kumar decision was not applicable in the present case, since it was based on a different statutory regime (U.P. Reservation Act, 1994), which allowed migration from reserved to general categories.

“The ratio in Jitendra Kumar cannot be read as a blanket proposition of law… it must be confined to its factual and legal context.”

The Court further distinguished decisions such as Saurav Yadav and Vikas Sankhala, observing that in both cases, no relaxation or concession was availed, which made migration legally viable. However, in the present case, availing age relaxation meant disqualification from general category consideration under the existing recruitment rules.

The Court strongly reiterated: “Where an express bar exists under governing rules or executive instructions, migration is impermissible, regardless of merit.”

“The principle of equality cannot be stretched to the point of overriding specific policy instruments that are lawful and rational.”

“No Room for Judicial Adventurism Where Recruitment Rules Are Clear” — High Court’s Judgment Set Aside for Ignoring Binding Guidelines

The Supreme Court expressed strong disapproval of the High Court’s approach in overriding the clear terms of the 1998 OM. It noted that judicial forums must not disregard settled policy merely to advance an equitable cause, particularly in the domain of public employment, where rules ensure transparency and fairness.

“When a candidate participates in the selection process knowing fully well the implications of availing a concession, he cannot later claim rights that are barred by the very benefit he accepted.”

This, the Court held, would defeat the logic of structured reservation frameworks and dilute the distinction between reserved and open competition.

Legal Discipline Overrides Subjective Notions of Fairness in Affirmative Action Jurisprudence

By setting aside the Calcutta High Court’s judgment and disallowing the appointment of candidates who availed age relaxation under the OBC quota, the Supreme Court has delivered a definitive pronouncement on the boundaries of meritocracy within the Indian reservation system.

The ruling reinforces the idea that judicial sympathy cannot substitute for legal clarity, especially when recruitment policies explicitly bar certain outcomes. It has also ensured that reserved category benefits are not weaponized for dual advantage, thus preserving the integrity of both reserved and unreserved quotas.

“Availing a benefit under reservation policies carries consequences — it is not open to a candidate to take concessions and still seek general category privileges when rules say otherwise.”

Date of Decision: September 9, 2025