Reserved Category Candidates Availing Age or Physical Relaxation Cannot Claim Unreserved Posts Merely on Higher Marks — Supreme Court Clarifies Rule of Migration

“Merit Alone Doesn’t Open the General Category Door If Entry Was Through Relaxed Criteria” —  On September 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of India laid down a definitive ruling on migration of reserved category candidates to unreserved seats in public employment, holding that if a reserved category candidate has availed any relaxation—whether in age or physical standards—they cannot later claim appointment under the unreserved category, even if their final score exceeds the unreserved cutoff.

Quashing the High Court’s direction to appoint such candidates in unreserved seats, the Apex Court declared: “Para 14(f) of Standing Order No.85 bars reserved candidates who have availed relaxation in age and/or physical measurements from being migrated to unreserved vacancies even if they have scored higher than the unreserved cutoff.”

“Partial Modification of Standing Orders Has Legal Consequences — Later Directive Prevails Over Earlier If In Conflict”

The Supreme Court, in this judgment authored by Justice Joymalya Bagchi, overruled the Patna High Court’s 2019 judgment which had directed that several reserved category candidates who scored more than the last selected general category candidate be appointed under unreserved posts. The Court clarified that merely scoring higher in the final merit list does not entitle a reserved category candidate to occupy unreserved seats if the candidate has availed any relaxation not available to the general category.

The dispute arose out of Employment Notice No. 1/2013 issued by the Railway Protection Force (RPF) for recruitment of Constables in various ancillary services. The process involved written exams, physical efficiency and measurement tests (PET and PMT), and trade tests. The eligibility criteria gave age and physical standard relaxations to SC/ST/OBC candidates. The key condition was laid down in Clause 4(d)(v):

“No age relaxation is allowed to SC/ST/OBC candidates applying against unreserved vacancies.”

While preparing the final list, several reserved category candidates who had availed age or physical relaxations but scored higher than the general category cutoff marks were not included in the unreserved list. They challenged this exclusion before the High Court, which directed their appointment under the general category.

The core legal question, as framed by the High Court, was:

“Whether the Petitioners who secured more than the UR candidates in the written test and trade test can be considered against the UR vacancies?”

The appellants (RPF) argued that Standing Order No.85, read with Revised Directive No.29 (dated 06.12.2013), barred such migration. Clause 14(f) of Standing Order No.85 stated:

“Candidates from SC, ST and OBC categories selected purely on merit without availing any relaxation in age, physical measurements and qualifying marks in written test shall not be counted against vacancies reserved for such categories.”

In contrast, the respondents relied on Standing Order No.78, which in Para 14(b) allowed reserved candidates to migrate to UR category if they scored higher. This created a conflict.

“Standing Order No.85 Prevails Over Standing Order No.78 — Partial Modification Means Limited Supersession”

The Court clarified that Standing Order No.85, introduced for recruitment to constable posts and made applicable to ancillary staff via Revised Directive No.29, partially modified Standing Order No.78. Thus, to the extent of inconsistency, Standing Order No.85 overrode the earlier directive.

Rejecting the High Court’s conclusion, the Court held: “Para 14(f) of the latter Standing Order will prevail over Para 14(b) of former Standing Order, putting an embargo on migration of reserved candidates who have availed relaxation of age and/or physical measurements.”

“Eligibility and Relaxation Criteria Must Be Treated as Integral to Competitive Parity”

The Court emphasized that availing concessions at the entry level disqualifies a candidate from claiming equivalence with general category candidates.

Referring to the binding precedent of Union of India & Ors. vs. Sajib Roy, the Court reiterated:

“If an embargo is imposed under relevant recruitment rules, such reserved candidates shall not be permitted to migrate to general category seats.”

It also noted that several petitioners had either failed the trade test or did not meet the UR cutoff — facts ignored by the High Court.

“Relaxed Physical Standards Are Not Always a Barrier, But Age Relaxation Is” — Second Appeal Dismissed on Distinguishable Grounds

The same judgment also dealt with SLP (C) No. 28469/2019, where a general category candidate challenged the selection of an ST candidate under the unreserved list in CISF Assistant Commandant recruitment.

Here, the ST candidate had availed a lower height requirement, scoring more than the last general category candidate. The appellant relied on the same Office Memorandum dated 01.07.1998, arguing that physical standard relaxations also disentitle migration.

However, the Court rejected this argument, holding:

“The memorandum does not expressly state that relaxed physical standards would disentitle a candidate from being considered under general category.”

The High Court had rightly interpreted that gender-based and ethnic physical standards (like height/weight) are not of the same category as age/marks relaxations and therefore, migration could not be barred on that basis.

Thus, this second appeal was dismissed, upholding the High Court's view that ST candidates can be treated as general category if selected on merit, despite relaxed physical standards.

The Supreme Court’s decision in RPF & Ors. vs. Prem Chand Kumar clearly affirms the legal sanctity of recruitment rules and directives that bar migration of reserved category candidates who enter with relaxation benefits. While merit is important, entry on relaxed norms disqualifies parity with unreserved category.

In contrast, the Court made a nuanced distinction in the second case, holding that not all forms of relaxation—especially those based on physical constitution like height—automatically bar a candidate from claiming UR status, provided the rules do not explicitly impose such a bar.

Date of Decision: 09th September, 2025