Holding

A reserved candidate who has availed age relaxation cannot be recruited against unreserved vacancies where the recruitment rules or office memorandum expressly prohibit such migration.

Summary

The Staff Selection Commission advertised recruitment for Constable (GD) posts with an age limit of 18‑23 years, granting a three‑year relaxation to OBC candidates. Several OBC applicants, including Sajib Roy, availed this relaxation, failed to secure selection in the OBC quota, but scored higher than the last candidate selected under the unreserved quota. They sought to migrate to the unreserved category, and the High Court allowed this, relying on Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of UP. The Union of India challenged the decision, citing an Office Memorandum dated 01‑07‑1998 that expressly bars migration of candidates who have taken age or other relaxations. The Supreme Court examined the statutory scheme, the 1994 Act, the 1994 Government Instructions permitting migration, and the 1998 Office Memorandum imposing an embargo. It held that where a recruitment rule expressly prohibits migration of candidates who have availed relaxations, the High Court’s application of Jitendra Kumar was erroneous. Consequently, the Court set aside the High Court orders and allowed the appeals, disallowing the respondents’ migration to unreserved seats.

Issues considered

Whether an OBC candidate who has availed age relaxation for a reserved post can be considered for appointment under unreserved vacancies when his marks exceed the last selected unreserved candidate.
Whether the High Court erred in applying the ratio in Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of UP despite the existence of an Office Memorandum dated 01‑07‑1998 that bars such migration.

Legislation cited

Constitution of India

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order by the High Court permitting the respondents who had applied as reserved candidates in OBC category after having availed age relaxation for the post of Constable, to be considered for recruitment under unreserved Recruitment – Appointment of OBC candidate to unreserved candidate – Permissibility – Recruitment of Constables – OBC candidates availed age relaxation for participation in the recruitment process, however, declared unsuccessful as they had scored marks lower than the last

Subjects

Reserved candidatesOBC categoryAge relaxationPost of ConstableRecruitmentUnreserved categoryJitendra Kumar’s caseOffice memorandum dated 01.07.1998Migration of reserved candidatesConcessions in the form of age relaxationAppointment in unreserved categoryRecruitment processLast selected candidateMigration to unreserved categoryRecruitment rules/employment notificationGeneral categoryGovernment instructions dated 25.03.1994

Judgment

[2025] 9 S.C.R. 542 : 2025 INSC 1084

Union of India & Ors.
v.
Sajib Roy
(Civil Appeal No. 11718 of 2025)
09 September 2025
[Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order by the High
Court permitting the respondents who had applied as reserved
candidates in OBC category after having availed age relaxation
for the post of Constable, to be considered for recruitment under
unreserved category.

Headnotes†
Service law – Recruitment – Appointment of OBC candidate
to unreserved candidate – Permissibility – Recruitment of
Constables – OBC candidates availed age relaxation for
participation in the recruitment process, however, declared
unsuccessful as they had scored marks lower than the last
selected candidate in the OBC category, but their marks were
higher than the last selected candidate in the unreserved
category – OBC candidates sought migration to the unreserved
category – High Court held that the writ petitioners-OBC
candidates who had applied as reserved candidates in OBC
category after having availed age relaxation for the post
of Constable (GD) to be considered for recruitment under
unreserved category – Correctness:
Held: Whether a reserved candidate who has availed relaxation
in fees/upper age limit to participate in open competition with
general candidates may be recruited against unreserved seats
would depend on the facts of each case – In the event there
is no embargo in the recruitment rules/employment notification,
such reserved candidates who have scored higher than the last
selected unreserved candidate shall be entitled to migrate and
be recruited against unreserved seats – However, if an embargo
is imposed under relevant recruitment rules, such reserved
candidates shall not be permitted to migrate to general category

* Author
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 543

Union of India & Ors. v. Sajib Roy

seats – As the respondents-writ petitioners had availed concession
of age for participating in the recruitment process, in the teeth
of office memorandum dated 01.07.1998 which clearly barred
such migration in the event the reserved candidates had availed
relaxations in age, experience qualification, etc, the High Court
erred in applying the ratio in Jitendra Kumar’s case wherein by
virtue of the government instructions dated 25.03.1994 expressly
permitted reserved candidates who have availed relaxation in fees/
upper age limit etc. to be considered for appointment in unreserved
category – Thus, the impugned judgment and order by the High
Court set aside. [Paras 32, 33]

Case Law Cited
Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr v. State of UP & Ors. [2010] 1 SCR
325 : (2010) 3 SCC 119 – distinguished.
Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr v. Jagdamba Oil Mills & Anr.
[2002] 1 SCR 621 : (2002) 3 SCC 496; Deepa E. V. v. Union of
India & Ors. [2017] 1 SCR 938 : (2017) 12 SCC 680; Gaurav
Pradhan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2017] 8 SCR 951 :
(2018) 11 SCC 352; Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujarat
Public Service Commission & Ors. [2019] 9 SCR 47 : (2019) 7
SCC 383; Government (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar &
Ors. [2019] 13 SCR 1056 : (2019) 10 SCC 120; Vikas Sankhala
& Ors. v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors. [2016] 7 SCR 639 : (2017)
1 SCC 350; Saurav Yadav & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors. [2020] 11
SCR 281 : (2021) 4 SCC 542; Ajithkumar P. & Ors. v. Remin K. R.
& Ors. (2015) 16 SCC 778; Sadhana Singh Dangi & Ors. v. Pinki
Asati & Ors. (2022) 12 SCC 401; Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited
& Anr. v. Sandeep Chaudhary & Ors. [2022] 4 SCR 1002 : (2022)
11 SCC 779 – referred to.
Quinn v. Leathem [1901] AC 495 (HL) – referred to.

List of Acts
Constitution of India.

List of Keywords
Reserved candidates; OBC category; Age relaxation; Post of
Constable; Recruitment; Unreserved category; Jitendra Kumar’s
case; Office memorandum dated 01.07.1998; Migration of reserved
candidates; Concessions in the form of age relaxation; Appointment
544 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

in unreserved category; Recruitment process; Last selected
candidate; Migration to unreserved category; Recruitment rules/
employment notification; General category; Government instructions
dated 25.03.1994.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11718 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.10.2018 and 26.02.2019
of the High Court of Tripura at Agarthala in WP(C) No. 281 of 2017
and RP No. 04 of 2019
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 11720, 11722, and 11724 of 2025

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv., Ms. Priyanka Das, Rajan Kumar
Chourasia, Apoorva Kurup, Mukul Singh, Pratyush Srivastav,
Sharath Narayan Nambiar, Ashok Panigrahi, Shreekant Neelappa
Terdal.
Advs. for the Respondent:
Dr. Nirmal Chopra, T. N. Singh, Vikas K. Singh, Dr. Sham Chand,
Shubhranshu Padhi, Jay Nirupam, D. Girish Kumar, Pranav Giri,
Ekansh Sisodia, Ms. Manika Tripathy, Ashutosh Kaushik.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

1. Leave granted.
2. Appellants have assailed common impugned judgment and order
dated 12.10.2018 1 and order dated 26.02.2019 2 whereby the
respondents-writ petitioners who had applied as reserved candidates

1 In WP (C) No. 277/2017, WP (C) No. 279/2017, WP (C) No. 280/2017 and WP (C) No. 281/2017
2 In Review Application No. 3/2019, Review Application No. 4/2019, Review Application No. 5/2019 and
Review Application No. 6/2019
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 545

Union of India & Ors. v. Sajib Roy

in OBC category after having availed age relaxation for the post of
Constable (GD) were directed to be considered for recruitment under
unreserved category.
3. Facts in a short compass giving rise to the appeals are as follows –
Staff Selection Commission3 published employment notification for
recruitment of Constables (GD) in BSF, CRPF, ITBP, SSB, NIA and
SSF and Rifleman in Assam Rifles comprising physical test, written
examination and medical examination. As per the employment
notification, the prescribed age limit for eligible candidates to participate
in the recruitment process was 18 to 23 years as on 01.08.2015 and
age relaxation was given to various reserved candidates4. For OBC
candidates, i.e., the respondents-writ petitioners, age relaxation was
3 years5.
4. All the respondents-writ petitioners availed of such age relaxation for
participation in the recruitment process. However, they were declared
unsuccessful as they had scored marks lower than the last selected
candidate in the OBC category for various departments. But their
marks were higher than the last selected candidate in the unreserved
category for those departments. Claiming that they ought to be
permitted to migrate to the unreserved category, the respondents-
writ petitioners approached the High Court. Union of India opposed
the prayer on the ground that the respondents-writ petitioners had
applied in the OBC category after availing age relaxation and under
such circumstances cannot be considered eligible for appointment
in unreserved category.
5. Relying on Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr v. State of UP & Ors6,
the High Court held that the refusal to permit respondents-writ
petitioners to migrate to the unreserved category though they scored
higher than the last candidate in such category runs counter to the
principles of merit-based recruitment in public services and would
be opposed to the principles of equality enshrined under Article 14
of the Constitution. The High Court further held that relaxations in
fee and age for reserved candidates to participate in the selection

3 SSC for short
4 Employment Notification no. F. No.3/1/2014–P&P-I (vol-II), Para 4A
5 Para 4B of the aforementioned notification
6 (2010) 3 SCC 119
546 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

process are concessions in aid of reservation and do not impair the
‘level-playing field’ in the open competition, i.e., written examination
where such candidates have scored more than those selected under
the unreserved category.
6. Subsequently, Union of India by way of a review petition placed
on record an office memorandum no. 36011/1/98-Estt. (Res) dated
01.07.1998 which inter alia provided that SC/ST/OBC candidates
who have availed relaxations in age limit, experience qualification
or number of chances in written examinations would be deemed
unavailable for consideration against the unreserved vacancies.
Notwithstanding such office memorandum the High Court refused to
review its judgment and the review petition came to be dismissed.
7. We have heard Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, learned senior counsel for the
appellants and Dr. Nirmal Chopra and Ms. Manika Tripathy, learned
counsel for the respondents-writ petitioners.
8. The moot issue which falls for consideration is did the High Court
err in applying the ratio in Jitendra Kumar (supra) in the teeth of the
office memorandum dated 01.07.1998 which put a clog on migration
of reserved candidates who have availed concessions in the form of
age relaxation for appointment in unreserved category?
9. In Jitendra Kumar (supra) this Court was called upon to decide
whether availing relaxation in fees/upper age limit in the reserved
category would disentitle such candidates from being considered for
appointment in the unreserved seats. The Bench held such relaxations
in fee or age were incidental and ancillary provisions which made
the core concept of reservation under Article 16(4) effective. Such
enlargement of zone of consideration by giving concession in fees/
upper age limit were merely an ‘aid to reservation’ and enabled the
reserved candidate to participate with others in an open competition
on merit. These concessions did not affect the level-playing field
in the recruitment process wherein both reserved and unreserved
candidates competed against each other without handicap. The
Bench elucidated as follows:-
“75. In our opinion, the relaxation in age does not in any
manner upset the “level playing field”. It is not possible
to accept the submission of the learned counsel for the
appellants that relaxation in age or the concession in fee
would in any manner be infringement of Article 16(1) of
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 547

Union of India & Ors. v. Sajib Roy

the Constitution of India. These concessions are provisions
pertaining to the eligibility of a candidate to appear in the
competitive examination. At the time when the concessions
are availed, the open competition has not commenced. It
commences when all the candidates who fulfil the eligibility
conditions, namely, qualifications, age, preliminary written
test and physical test are permitted to sit in the main written
examination. With age relaxation and the fee concession,
the reserved candidates are merely brought within the
zone of consideration, so that they can participate in the
open competition on merit. Once the candidate participates
in the written examination, it is immaterial as to which
category, the candidate belongs. All the candidates to
be declared eligible had participated in the preliminary
test as also in the physical test. It is only thereafter that
successful candidates have been permitted to participate
in the open competition.”
10. Having propounded the aforesaid general principles, the Bench
proceeded to decide the case in light of the relevant recruitment rules:-
“65. In any event the entire issue in the present appeals
need not be decided on the general principles of law laid
down in various judgments as noticed above. In these
matters, we are concerned with the interpretation of the
1994 Act, the Instructions dated 25-3-1994 and the G.O.
dated 26-2-1999. The controversy herein centres around
the limited issue as to whether an OBC who has applied
exercising his option as a reserved category candidate,
thus becoming eligible to be considered against a reserved
vacancy, can also be considered against an unreserved
vacancy if he/she secures more marks than the last
candidate in the general category.”
11. It is clear that the decision in Jitendra Kumar (supra) is not founded
on the general principles but on the interpretation of the relevant
statute7, government order8 and instructions9 regulating the selection

7 The U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward
Classes) Act, 1994 (1994 Act for short)
8 GO dated 26.02.1999
9 Instructions dated 25.03.1994
548 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

process. It may not be out of place to note Section 8 (1) of the 1994 Act
empowered the State Government to grant concessions in respect of
age limit, fees for reserved categories in any competitive examination
or interview. The government instructions dated 25.03.1994 permitted
reserved candidates availing such concessions to be adjusted against
unreserved seats10.
12. In light of such government instructions the Bench held:-
“72. ……From the above it becomes quite apparent that
the relaxation in age-limit is merely to enable the reserved
category candidate to compete with the general category
candidate, all other things being equal. The State has
not treated the relaxation in age and fee as relaxation
in the standard for selection, based on the merit of the
candidate in the selection test i.e. main written test followed
by interview.”
13. The ratio in Jitendra Kumar (supra) is clearly distinguishable on facts.
The recruitment process at hand is regulated by office memorandum
dated 01.07.1998 which bars the migration of a reserved candidate.
Office memorandum reads as follows:-
“No.36011/1/98-Estt. (Res)
Ministry of Personnel, P.G. & Pensions
Department of Personnel & Training
New Delhi Dated 01.07.1998
OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Subject: Relaxations and concessions for SCs and STs
clarification regarding.
The undersigned is directed to refer to this Department’s
O.M.No.36012/13/88-Estt. (SCT) dated May 22, 1989 and
to clarify that the instructions contained in the C.M. apply in
all types of direct recruitment whether by written test alone
or written test followed by interview or by interview alone.

10 4. If any person belonging to reserved categories is selected on the basis of merits in open competition
along with general category candidates, then he will not be adjusted towards reserved category, that is,
he shall be deemed to have been adjusted against the unreserved vacancies. It shall be immaterial that
he has availed any facility or relaxation (like relaxation in age-limit) available to reserved category.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 549

Union of India & Ors. v. Sajib Roy

2. O.M. dated May 22, 1989 referred to above and the
O.M. No. 36012/2/96-ESTT(RES) dated July 2, 1997
provide that in cases of direct recruitment, the SC/ST/
OBC candidates who are selected on their own merit will
not be adjusted against reserved vacancies.
3. In this connection, it is clarified that only such SC/ST/
OBC candidates who are selected on the same standard
as applied to general candidates shall not be adjusted
against reserved vacancies. In other words, when a relaxed
standard is applied in selecting an SC/ST/OBC candidates
for example in the age limit, experience qualification,
permitted number of chances in written examination,
extended zone of consideration larger then what is provided
for general category candidates etc. the SC/ST/OBC
candidates are to be counted against reserved vacancies.
Such candidates would be deemed as unavailable for
consideration against unreserved vacancies.
14. It may be apposite to bear in mind the respondents-writ petitioners
have without demur participated in the selection process and had
not called in question the constitutional validity of the aforementioned
office memorandum.
15. Given this situation, the High Court erred in mechanically applying
the ratio in Jitendra Kumar (supra) to the present case without
appreciating the difference in the factual matrix of the present
case with the cited authority. While in Jitendra Kumar (supra) the
government instructions dated 25.03.1994 expressly permitted
reserved candidates who have availed relaxation in fees/upper age
limit etc. to be considered for appointment in unreserved category,
office memorandum dated 01.07.1998 clearly barred such migration
in the event the reserved candidates had availed relaxations in age,
experience qualification, etc.
16. It is trite the ratio in a judgment must be read in the facts of a
particular case and cannot have universal application. In Quinn v.
Leathem11, Lord Halsbury remarked:-

11 [1901] AC 495 (HL)
550 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“….there are two observations of a general character
which I wish to make, and one is to repeat what I have
very often said before, that every judgment must be read
as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to
be proved, since the generality of the expressions which
may be found there are not intended to be expositions of
the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular
facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found.
The other is that a case is only an authority for what it
actually decides. I entirely deny that it can be quoted for a
proposition that may seem to follow logically from it. Such
a mode of reasoning assumes that the law is necessarily
a logical code, whereas every lawyer must acknowledge
that the law is not always logical at all.”
17. In Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr v. Jagdamba Oil Mills &
Anr12, the Court held:-
“21. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact
may make a world of difference between conclusions in
two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance
on a decision is not proper.
22. The following words of Hidayatullah, J. in the matter of
applying precedents have become locus classicus: (Abdul
Kayoom v. CIT, AIR p. 688, para 19)
“19. … Each case depends on its own facts and
a close similarity between one case and another
is not enough because even a single significant
detail may alter the entire aspect. In deciding
such cases, one should avoid the temptation to
decide cases (as said by Cardozo) by matching
the colour of one case against the colour of
another. To decide, therefore, on which side of
the line a case falls, the broad resemblance to
another case is not at all decisive.”

*** *** *** ***

12 (2002) 3 SCC 496
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 551

Union of India & Ors. v. Sajib Roy

“Precedent should be followed only so far as
it marks the path of justice, but you must cut
the dead wood and trim off the side branches
else you will find yourself lost in thickets and
branches. My plea is to keep the path to justice
clear of obstructions which could impede it.”
18. Whether the general observations in Jitendra Kumar (supra) could
be treated as a binding precedent in respect of recruitment process
where such migration is not permitted is no longer res integra.
19. In Deepa E. V. v. Union of India & Ors13, a two judge Bench of this
Court taking note of self-same office memorandum applicable in
the present case held the ratio in Jitendra Kumar (supra) pertained
to interpretation of the 1994 Act and government instructions dated
25.03.1994 and general principles made therein were inapplicable
to a recruitment process where such migration is not permitted. The
Bench observed:-
“8. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly relied
upon the judgment of this Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh
v. State of U.P, which deals with the U.P. Public Services
(Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and
Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 and Government Order
dated 25-3-1994. On a perusal of the above judgment, we
find that there is no express bar in the said U.P. Act for the
candidates of SC/ST/OBC being considered for the posts
under general category. In such facts and circumstances
of the said case, this Court has taken the view that the
relaxation granted to the reserved category candidates will
operate a level playing field. In the light of the express
bar provided under the proceedings dated 1-7-1998 the
principle laid down in Jitendra Kumar Singh cannot be
applied to the case in hand.
10. Having regard to the observations in paras 65 and
72, in our view, the principles laid down in Jitendra Kumar
Singh cannot be applied to the case in hand. As rightly
pointed out by the High Court that the judgment in Jitendra

13 (2017) 12 SCC 680
552 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Kumar Singh was based on the statutory interpretation of
the U.P. Act, 1994 and Government Order dated 25-3-1994
which provides for entirely a different scheme.”
20. Considering similar embargo14 in the recruitment process, another
Coordinate Bench in Gaurav Pradhan & Ors v. State of Rajasthan &
Ors15, held general observations in Jitendra Kumar (supra) shall not
come in aid of reserved candidates who have availed age relaxation
to migrate to general category. The Bench observed as follows:-
“32. We are of the view that the judgment of this Court
in Jitendra Kumar Singh which was based on statutory
scheme and the Circular dated 25-3-1994 has to be
confined to scheme which was under consideration,
statutory scheme and intention of the State Government
as indicated from the said scheme cannot be extended
to a State where the State circulars are to the contrary
especially when there is no challenge before us to the
converse scheme as delineated by the Circular dated
24-6-2008.”
21. These views have been reiterated in Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v.
Gujarat Public Service Commission & Ors16 and affirmed by a three
judge Bench in Government (NCT of Delhi) & Ors v. Pradeep Kumar
& Ors17.
22. On the other hand, respondents-writ petitioners have relied on Vikas
Sankhala & Ors v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors18, Saurav Yadav &
Ors v. State of UP & Ors19, Ajithkumar P. & Ors. v. Remin K. R. &
Ors20 and Sadhana Singh Dangi & Ors v. Pinki Asati & Ors21, to
sustain the view of the High Court that the migration of the reserved
candidate who has scored higher than the last selected unreserved
candidate is permissible. Respondents-writ petitioners argue that a bar

14 Para 6.2 of circular dated 24.06.2008
15 (2018) 11 SCC 352
16 (2019) 7 SCC 383
17 (2019) 10 SCC 120
18 (2017) 1 SCC 350
19 (2021) 4 SCC 542
20 (2015) 16 SCC 778
21 (2022) 12 SCC 401
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 553

Union of India & Ors. v. Sajib Roy

to migration would be in violation of the principles of equality under
Article 14 and counter to maintenance of efficiency of administration
enshrined under Article 335 of the Constitution.
23. In Vikas Sankhala (supra), the State government had relaxed the
minimum pass marks in Teacher Eligibility Test22 by 10 percent to 20
percent for various reserved categories in the matter of recruitment
of primary teachers. It was contended such relaxation was contrary
to the extant reservation policy of the State and migration of such
candidates who availed concession for recruitment to unreserved
categories was illegal. Reserved candidates relied on a circular dated
11.05.2011 which permitted such migration. Holding that the said
circular was issued after the recruitment process had commenced
and migration was barred as per earlier circulars, the High Court held
appointment of reserved candidates availing concession in qualifying
marks in TET against unreserved seats was impermissible.
24. This Court analysed the concession given to reserved candidates with
regard to qualifying marks in TET in the context of the recruitment
rules which inter alia prescribed a uniform addition of 20 percent of
TET marks to the final score of each candidate. Consequently, the
reserved candidates who secured lesser marks in TET would not get
any additional advantage vis-à-vis general candidates in computing
the final scores irrespective of the lowering of the qualifying marks
in TET. The Bench clarified this issue as follows:-
“80. …..One of the heads is “marks in TET”. So far as
this head is concerned, 20% of the marks obtained in
TET are to be assigned to each candidate. Therefore,
those reserved category candidates who secured lesser
marks in TET would naturally get less marks under this
head. We would like to demonstrate it with an example :
Suppose a reserved category candidate obtains 53 marks
in TET, he is treated as having qualified TET. However,
when he is considered for selection to the post of primary
teacher, in respect of allocation of marks he will get 20%
marks for TET. As against him, a general candidate who
secures 70 marks in TET shall be awarded 14 marks in

22 TET for short
554 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

recruitment process. Thus, on the basis of TET marks
reserved category candidate has not got any advantage
while considering his candidature for the post. On the
contrary, “level-playing field” is maintained whereby a
person securing higher marks in TET, whether belonging
to general category or reserved category, is allocated
higher marks in respect of 20% of TET marks. Thus, in
recruitment process no weightage or concession is given
and allocation of 20% of TET marks is applied across the
board. Therefore, the High Court is not correct in observing
that concession was given in the recruitment process on
the basis of relaxation in TET.”
25. In this backdrop, the Bench held irrespective of the applicability of
circular dated 11.05.2011 relaxation in TET qualifying marks does not
amount to a concession which would disentitle migration of reserved
candidates against unreserved seats. The Bench opined:-
“81. Once this vital differentiation is understood, it would
lead to the conclusion that no concession becomes
available to the reserved category candidate by giving
relaxation in pass marks in TET insofar as recruitment
process is concerned. It only enables them to compete
with others by allowing them to participate in the selection
process. In this backdrop, irrespective of the Circular
dated 11-5-2011, the reserved category candidates who
secured more marks than marks obtained by the last
candidate selected in general category, would be entitled
to be considered against unreserved category vacancies.
However, it would be subject to the condition that these
candidates have not availed any other concession in terms
of number of attempts, etc., except on fee and age.”
It may also be apposite to note that the earlier circulars applicable
to the selection process23 did not put a restriction on selection of the
reserved candidate availing concession in TET marks for appointment
in unreserved seats provided they scored higher than the last selected
unreserved candidate.

23 See Para 73 and 74 in Vikas Sankhala (supra)
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 555

Union of India & Ors. v. Sajib Roy

26. In Ajithkumar (supra) the issue which fell for consideration was the
power of the recruiting authority to conduct a preliminary examination
in order to shortlist candidates and not the right of a reserved candidate
seeking relaxation to migrate to unreserved category.
27. In Saurav Yadav (supra) the issue which fell for decision was whether
women OBC candidates could be adjusted against vacancies in the
women general category. The case involved an interplay between
vertical reservation and horizontal reservation for women. Lalit J.,
(as His Lordship then was) permitted the migration holding that the
candidates in question had not availed of any special benefit which
may disentitle them from being considered against general category
seats:-
“42. We must also clarify at this stage that it is not disputed
that Applicant 1 and other similarly situated candidates are
otherwise entitled and eligible to be appointed in “Open/
General Category” and that they have not taken or availed
of any special benefit which may disentitle them from
being considered against “Open/General Category” seat.
The entire discussion and analysis in the present case is,
therefore, from said perspective.”
28. Supplementing this view, Ravindra Bhat J. held that:-
“65. ….it is too late in the day for the respondent State
to contend that women candidates who are entitled to
benefit of social category reservations, cannot fill open
category vacancies. The said view is starkly exposed as
misconceived, because it would result in such women
candidates with less merit (in the open category) being
selected, and those with more merit than such selected
candidates, (in the social/vertical reservation category)
being left out of selection.”
29. However, such observations were premised on the fact that there
was no rule, or direction which prohibited the adjustment of socially
reserved categories of women in the general category or open
category24.

24 See Para 57 in Saurav Yadav (supra)
556 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

30. In Sadhana Singh Dangi (supra), the Court again looked into
migration of women candidates availing horizontal reservation from
reserved i.e. OBC category to unreserved category. The recruitment
process permitted migration in vertical reservation but stated that the
horizontal reservation for women is compartmentalised. Referring to
the observations of Ravindra Bhat J. in Saurav Yadav (supra) the
Bench reversed the decision of the High Court barring migration in
horizontal category, observing as follows:-
“22. It is true that the leading judgment in Saurav Yadav
[Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P., considered the matter from
a general plane but the concurring judgment authored by
S. Ravindra Bhat, J. did additionally consider the issue
from the perspective of absence of any statutory rules in
the field. It is also true that in the instant case, there are
rules occupying the field and the case would be a fortiori,
but we need not enter into that arena as, in our view,
the general propositions laid down in Saurav Yadav by
themselves are sufficient to take care of the controversy
which has arisen in the instant matters.
23. The law laid down in Saurav Yadav is very clear that
even while applying horizontal reservation, the merit must
be given precedence and that if the candidates who belong
to SCs, STs and OBCs have secured higher marks or are
more meritorious, they must be considered against the
seats meant for unreserved candidates.
These observations in Sadhana Singh Dangi (supra) must be read in
the factual matrix of the case which permitted migration of candidates
in vertical reservation unlike the present case.
31. In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Anr. v. Sandeep Chaudhary
& Ors25, the cut off marks was reduced for both OBC and general
candidates and no special concession was given to OBC candidates.
Under these circumstances, the Court permitted the OBC candidates
who had scored higher marks than the last selected candidate in
the general category to avail unreserved seats.

25 (2022) 11 SCC 779
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 557

Union of India & Ors. v. Sajib Roy

32. On an analysis of the aforecited cases, we summarise as follows:
Whether a reserved candidate who has availed relaxation in fees/
upper age limit to participate in open competition with general
candidates may be recruited against unreserved seats would depend
on the facts of each case. That is to say, in the event there is no
embargo in the recruitment rules/employment notification, such
reserved candidates who have scored higher than the last selected
unreserved candidate shall be entitled to migrate and be recruited
against unreserved seats. However, if an embargo is imposed under
relevant recruitment rules, such reserved candidates shall not be
permitted to migrate to general category seats.
33. Accordingly, we hold as the respondents-writ petitioners had availed
concession of age for participating in the recruitment process, in the
teeth of office memorandum dated 01.07.1998, the High Court was
wrong in applying the ratio in Jitendra Kumar (supra) and permitting
them to be considered for appointment in the unreserved category.
Consequently, we set aside the common impugned judgment and
order dated 12.10.2018 and order dated 26.02.2019 and allow the
appeals. Pending application(s) if any, stand disposed of.

Result of the case: Appeals allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain