Holding

A reserved‑category candidate who has availed any relaxation at any stage of the examination cannot be treated as selected on a General Standard and is ineligible for allocation against an unreserved (General Insider) vacancy.

Summary

The case concerned the allocation of a General Insider vacancy in the Karnataka cadre of the Indian Forest Service. G. Kiran, an SC candidate, had availed the relaxed cut‑off in the Preliminary Examination and subsequently secured a higher rank than the General candidate Antony S Mariyappa in the final merit list. The Union of India challenged the Tribunal and High Court orders that had allowed Kiran to be treated as a General candidate for the unreserved vacancy. The Supreme Court examined the Exam Rules, 2013, especially Rule 14(ii) and its proviso, and Paragraph 9 of the Cadre Allocation Policy, holding that any relaxation taken at any stage disqualifies a reserved‑category candidate from being considered on a ‘General Standard’. Consequently, Kiran could not be allocated the General Insider vacancy, which rightfully belonged to the General candidate. The Court set aside the Tribunal and High Court judgments and upheld the original notification allocating the vacancy to the General candidate.

Issues considered

Whether a reserved‑category candidate who availed relaxation in the Preliminary Examination can be treated as an ‘Insider General’ candidate for allocation against an unreserved vacancy.
Interpretation of Rule 14(ii) proviso of the Exam Rules, 2013 and its impact on cadre allocation.
Effect of Paragraph 9 of the Cadre Allocation Policy on candidates who have taken relaxed standards.

Legislation cited

The Rules for a competitive examination to be held by the Union Public Service Commission in 2013s. Rule 1, s. Rule 13, s. Rule 14, s. Rule 17

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Whether a reserved category candidate who availed relaxation while qualifying Preliminary Examination, though secured more marks than cut-off of the General Category candidate in the Main Examination and Interview for personality test and secured place in the final merit candidate for cadre allocation against an unreserved vacancy. Headnotes† The Rules for a competitive examination to be held by the Union Public Service Commission in 2013 (Exam Rules, 2013) – rr.1, 13, 14(ii), 17(1) – Vacancies in the Indian Forest Service (IFS) –

Subjects

Indian Forest ServiceRelaxationPreliminary ExaminationCadre AllocationGeneral Insider vacancyReserved categoryUnreserved vacancyExam Rules 2013Cadre Allocation PolicySC candidateMerit list

Judgment

[2026] 1 S.C.R. 141 : 2026 INSC 15

Union of India
v.
G. Kiran & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No(s). 51 of 2026)
06 January 2026
[J.K. Maheshwari* and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether a reserved category candidate who availed relaxation
while qualifying Preliminary Examination, though secured more
marks than cut-off of the General Category candidate in the Main
Examination and Interview for personality test and secured place in
the final merit list, can be considered as ‘Insider General’ candidate
for cadre allocation against an unreserved vacancy.

Headnotes†
The Rules for a competitive examination to be held by the
Union Public Service Commission in 2013 (Exam Rules, 2013) –
rr.1, 13, 14(ii), 17(1) – Vacancies in the Indian Forest Service
(IFS) – Relaxation in qualifying marks at the preliminary stage –
Relaxation/concession obtained in ‘eligibility’ or ‘selection
criteria’, effect in the matter of cadre allocation – Respondent
No.1, a reserved category candidate who availed relaxation in
the Preliminary Examination but was placed higher in merit
than the Respondent No.3-unreserved candidate in the final
merit list based on total marks awarded in Main Examination
(Written) and Personality Test, claimed to be treated as a
General merit candidate for the purpose of cadre allocation
against a General Insider vacancy for State of Karnataka in the
IFS – OA allowed by the Tribunal holding that a meritorious
SC candidate cannot be denied allocation against a General
vacancy solely on the ground of availing relaxation in the SC
cut-off marks at the stage of Preliminary Examination and
directed to allocate the General Insider vacancy in the State of
Karnataka to Respondent No.1, reserved category candidate –
Writ petitions filed by Respondent No. 3 (who was allocated
the General insider vacancy) and Union of India, dismissed by
High Court, order of the Tribunal affirmed – Interference with:

* Author
142 [2026] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Held: Once relaxation has been taken by a reserved category
candidate, they cannot be considered for unreserved vacancies – If
a reserved category candidate takes benefit of relaxation though
at initial stage, it will effectively amount to taking relaxation even
at the final stage of the selection process because without giving
relaxation to him, he was not in a position to participate in the
Main examination and to set forth his claim of cadre allocation –
Any relaxation or concession in eligibility or in selection criteria,
if taken at any stage of examination by such candidate of SC,
ST and OBC, they may not get any benefit to claim the vacancy
of unreserved category, in particular, in the context of r.17(1),
Exam Rule, 2013 seeking allocation of General Insider vacancy
in home State cadre as it would be contrary to paragraph 9 of
the Cadre Allocation Policy – The General category cut-off for
the Preliminary Examination was fixed at 267 – Respondent No.1
secured 247.18 marks – Had he been put against the general
standard, his candidature would have been terminated at the
first stage i.e., the Preliminary Examination – His candidature
succeeded in the first stage of the examination because of the
relaxed standards allowed in the Preliminary Examination for
SC candidates i.e. 233 marks – After availing the benefit of this
relaxation for admission to the Main Examination, Respondent
No.1 cannot subsequently claim to have been selected on “General
Standard” merely due to his performance in the subsequent
stages surpassed the general standard – If a candidate who has
resorted a relaxation at any stage of examination, would not fall
within the purview of the proviso to r.14(ii), Exam Rules, 2013 and
thus, for the purpose of the applicable Policy for cadre allocation,
he would not fall within the list of candidates selected on ‘General
Standard’ claiming General Insider vacancy of home state cadre as
insider candidate – Respondent No. 1, having availed the benefit
of “Relaxed Standard” in the Preliminary Examination, cannot be
treated as a candidate selected on “General Standard” thus, he is
not entitled to be allocated against the “General Insider” vacancy
in the Karnataka Cadre in place of Respondent No.3 – High Court
while affirming the judgment of the Tribunal glossed over r.1, intent
of r.13 and intent of proviso to r.13 as well as the real meaning of
r.14 and proviso thereto along with paragraph 9 of Cadre Allocation
Policy – Impugned judgments of High Court set aside – Notification
dtd.13.03.15 issued by the MoEFCC insofar allocating the Karnataka
Cadre to Respondent No.3 and Tamil Nadu Cadre to Respondent
No.1, upheld as correct. [Paras 28, 32, 36, 38-40]
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 143

Union of India v. G. Kiran & Ors.

The Rules for a competitive examination to be held by the
Union Public Service Commission in 2013 – Proviso to r.14(ii) –
‘Relaxed Standard’ – Consequence of availing:
Held: If a candidate has found place in the merit list without
availing ‘Relaxed Standards’ i.e., without resorting to ‘any’
‘relaxations’ or ‘concessions’ in eligibility or selection criteria ‘at
any stage of examination’, they shall not be adjusted against the
vacancies reserved for SC, ST and OBC – In the above context,
the word ‘any’ is relatable to relaxations or concessions either in
‘eligibility’ or any ‘selection criteria’ – It further qualifies that such
relaxation/concession can be availed at ‘any stage of examination’
having relevance to r.1 which indicates that all candidates would
be required to qualify the Preliminary Examination in order to
appear in the Main Examination – Therefore, the proviso throws
light by focusing on the issue of relaxations and concessions
in eligibility or selection criteria at any stage of examination.
[Paras 21, 22]

The Rules for a competitive examination to be held by the
Union Public Service Commission in 2013 – r.1, Proviso to
r.14(ii) – Vacancies in the Indian Forest Service (IFS):
Held: r.1 stipulates that IFS examination involves two tiers – Without
qualifying first tier i.e., Preliminary Examination, a candidate may
not be in a position to participate in Main Examination (Written) –
Therefore, even though the Preliminary Examination is merely
a screening test and marks obtained may not be counted for
determining final merit as per Clause 2 of s.I of Appendix-I,
Exam Rules, 2013, nonetheless, it is an integral stage of the
examination and relaxation availed by any candidate even at the
stage of Preliminary Examination cannot escape the phraseology
of proviso to r.14(ii) i.e., ‘relaxed standard’ granted at ‘any stage
of examination’. [Para 29]
The Rules for a competitive examination to be held by the
Union Public Service Commission in 2013 – r.1, Proviso to
r.13, Proviso to r.14(ii) – Vacancies in the Indian Forest Service
(IFS) – Mandate of r.1 ignored by High Court – Further, r.14(ii)
deals with the situation for the candidates of SC, ST and
OBC where discretion has been conferred upon UPSC to
grant relaxed standards to the fittest of these candidates for
selection to the service – While dealing with those relaxed
144 [2026] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

standards, it has been made clear in proviso that the candidates
of SC, ST and OBC recommended without resorting to ‘any’,
‘relaxation’ or ‘concession’ in ‘eligibility’ or ‘selection criteria’
at ‘any stage of examination’ may be adjusted against the
vacancies of unreserved category – Those reserved category
candidates who have availed of any relaxation or concession
at ‘any stage of the examination’ are not eligible to be adjusted
against unreserved vacancies.[Paras 26, 27]

Case Law Cited
Deepa E.V. v. Union of India and Ors. [2017] 1 SCR 938 : (2017)
12 SCC 680; Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan (2018) 11
SCC 352; Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujarat Public Service
Commission [2019] 9 SCR 47 : (2019) 7 SCC 383; Union of
India v. Sajib Roy [2025] 9 SCR 542 : 2025 SCC OnLine SC
1943 – relied on.
Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. [2010] 1 SCR 325 : (2010) 3
SCC 119; Ajithkumar P. v. Remin K. R. (2015) 16 SCC 778; Vikas
Sankhala and Others v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal and Others [2016]
7 SCR 639 : (2017) 1 SCC 350 – distinguished.

List of Acts
The Rules for a competitive examination to be held by the Union
Public Service Commission in 2013.

List of Keywords
Indian Forest Service (IFS); Relaxation; Relaxation in qualifying
marks at the preliminary stage; Relaxation or concession obtained
in ‘eligibility’ or ‘selection criteria’; Effect in the matter of cadre
allocation; Insider General’ candidate; Cadre allocation against
unreserved vacancy; General Insider vacancy for State of Karnataka
in the Indian Forest Service (IFS); Cadre Allocation Policy; Reserved
category candidate availed relaxation while qualifying Preliminary
Examination; Meritorious SC candidate; Allocation against General
vacancy; Relaxation availed in the SC cut-off marks at the stage of
Preliminary Examination; Relaxation at any stage of examination;
Reserved category candidate secured more marks than cut-off
of General Category candidate; Main Examination; Interview for
personality test; Reserved category candidate; Unreserved category
candidate; Vacancies in the Indian Forest Service (IFS)
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 145

Union of India v. G. Kiran & Ors.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 51 of 2026
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.08.2019 of the High Court
of Karnataka at Bengaluru in WP No. 54254 of 2016
With
Civil Appeal No. 52 of 2026

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant(s):
K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G., Nikhil Goel, Devashish Bharukha, Sr. Advs.,
Amit Pai, Aditya Bhat, Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, T. Dutta, Gurmeet
Singh Makker, Ms. Satvika Thakur, Ishaan Sharma, Shailesh
Madiyal, Rohan Gupta, Apoorv Kurup.
Advs. for the Respondent(s):
Jayanth Muth Raj, Nikhil Goel, Sr. Advs., Vinodh Kanna B, Abhilash
M R, Ms. Thilagavathi P, M/s M R Law Associates, Vardhman
Kaushik, Dhruv Joshi, Amit Pai, Aditya Bhat, Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj,
T. Dutta.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

J.K. Maheshwari J.

1. Leave granted.
2. Assailing the final judgment and order dated 06.08.2019 passed
in Writ Petition No. 18947 of 2016 (S-CAT) connected with Writ
Petition No. 54254 of 2016 (S-CAT) by the High Court of Karnataka
at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’), the appellants
have filed these appeals. For the sake of brevity, we will refer to
the parties as per their status in Civil Appeal arising out of Special
Leave Petition (C) No. 4743 of 2020.
3. The dispute in the present appeals is regarding the claim of a reserved
category candidate i.e., Respondent No. 1, who availed relaxation
in the Preliminary Examination but was placed higher in merit than
the unreserved candidate i.e., Respondent No. 3 in the final merit
146 [2026] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

list based on total marks awarded in Main Examination (Written) and
Personality Test, to be treated as a General merit candidate for the
purpose of cadre allocation against a General Insider vacancy for
State of Karnataka in the Indian Forest Service (hereinafter referred
to as ‘IFS’).
4. Being aggrieved by the notification dated 13.03.2015 issued by the
Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change (hereinafter
referred to as ‘MoEFCC’), allocating Tamil Nadu Cadre to Respondent
No. 1 instead of Karnataka, Respondent No. 1 preferred an
Original Application No. 170/239 of 2015 (hereinafter referred to
as ‘OA’) before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore
Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) and vide order dated
15.03.2016, the Tribunal allowed the Original Application holding
that a meritorious Scheduled Caste (hereinafter referred to as ‘SC’)
candidate cannot be denied allocation against a General vacancy
solely on the ground of availing relaxation in the SC cut-off marks
at the stage of Preliminary Examination. The Tribunal directed to
allocate the General Insider vacancy in the State of Karnataka to
Respondent No. 1. Being aggrieved by the said order, WP No. 18947
of 2016 (S-CAT) was filed by Respondent No. 3 (who was allocated
the General insider vacancy) and WP No. 54254 of 2016 (S-CAT) was
filed by the Union of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘UOI’), which
came to be dismissed by the common impugned order of the High
Court, affirming the view of the Tribunal. Hence, the present appeals.

FACTUAL MATRIX
5. Prequel to the present litigation, the MoEFCC issued Notification
No. 17011/01/2013-IFS-II dated 05.03.2013 publishing ‘The Rules
for a competitive examination to be held by the Union Public Service
Commission in 2013’ (hereinafter referred to as ‘Exam Rules, 2013’)
for the purpose of filling vacancies in the Indian Forest Service.
6. Respondent No. 1, belongs to SC category and Respondent No.
3 belongs to General category. Both appeared for the Preliminary
Examination in the year 2013. As per Exam Rules, 2013, the selection
process for IFS involved following two tiers – (i) the Civil Services
(Preliminary) Examination for purpose of screening; and (ii) the
Indian Forest Service (Main) Examination followed by an Interview
for personality test.
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 147

Union of India v. G. Kiran & Ors.

7. It is undisputed that in the Preliminary Examination, the cut-off to
qualify by General Category candidates was 267 and the cut-off
to qualify by SC category candidates was 233. Respondent No. 1
secured 247.18 marks, which was below the cut-off to qualify as
General category candidate, however, declared qualified for the Main
Examination availing the relaxed cut-off applicable to SC candidates.
Simultaneously, Respondent No. 3 secured 270.68 marks in the
Preliminary Exam and qualified for the Main Examination (Written)
as the said score was above the cut-off for General category. The
details of the marks obtained has been tabulated for ready reference
as under: –

Name of Candidate Category Qualifying Marks
(as Marks Obtained
availed for (for in the
purpose of purpose of Preliminary
Preliminary Preliminary Exam
Exam) Exam)

G Kiran SC 233 247.18
[Respondent No. 1]

Antony S Mariyappa General/ 267 270.68
[Respondent No. 3] Unreserved

8. Both the candidates appeared in the Main Examination (Written) in
October 2013 and qualified the same. They appeared in Interview
for personality test in December 2013. After all the stages of exam
and on the basis of marks secured by respective candidates in the
Main Examination and Interview, on 29th January 2014, the Union
Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘UPSC’)
recommended total 85 candidates for appointment as IFS.
9. In the final merit list, Respondent No. 1 was placed at rank 19
while Respondent No. 3 came to be placed at rank 37. Consequent
thereto, controversy was set into motion during the allocation of
cadres. For the 2013 examination, there were only two available
vacancies in the State of Karnataka - one was of ‘General Insider’
and the other was of ‘OBC Outsider’. Applying the Cadre Allocation
Policy issued on 10th April 2008 later amended on 21st April 2011
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Policy’), the UOI vide notification dated
13.03.2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned notification’)
148 [2026] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

allocated the ‘General Insider’ vacancy for State of Karnataka to
Respondent No. 3 being General category candidate. On the other
hand, Respondent No. 1, who was also having preference for State
of Karnataka, allocated the Tamil Nadu cadre, since no SC Insider
post was vacant in the State of Karnataka.
10. Challenging the impugned notification, Respondent No. 1 filed the OA
before the Tribunal on 26.03.2015 asking to quash the notification
in so far as it relates to him and Respondent No. 3 and also sought
a consequent direction to UOI and UPSC to allot him the General
Insider vacancy in the State of Karnataka with all consequential
benefits. The Tribunal, by order dated 15.03.2016 allowed the OA,
which was affirmed by the High Court vide impugned order dated
06.08.2019.
11. The High Court was of the view that since Respondent No. 1 had
secured a higher rank in Main Examination (Written) compared to
Respondent No. 3, and the Preliminary Examination was merely a
screening test and marks obtained therein were not to be considered
to draw the final merit, therefore, for cadre allocation, the former
should be treated as General category candidate and would be entitled
to get allocation of Karnataka cadre in General Insider vacancy.
Assailing these findings, present appeals have been preferred by
UOI and Respondent No. 3.

ARGUMENTS OF APPELLANT AND RESPONDENTS
12. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned Senior Counsel and Additional Solicitor
General of India, with vehemence submitted that the allocation of
cadre is governed by the Exam Rules, 2013 and the Policy. Rule
14 of the Exam Rules, 2013 specifically bars the adjustment of
reserved category candidates against unreserved vacancies if they
have availed relaxation at any stage in eligibility or selection criteria.
He put forth emphasis to phrase ‘any stage of the examination’
and argued that Respondent No. 1 could not secure marks above
cut-off for General category in the Preliminary Examination. He
had appeared in Main Examination after getting benefit of relaxed
standard in SC category, therefore, having availed a relaxation in
Preliminary Examination, Respondent No. 1 cannot be a candidate
selected on “General Standards” required under Paragraph 9 of the
Policy read with Rule 14 of the Exam Rules, 2013. To buttress such
contentions, reliance has been placed on the judgments of this Court
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 149

Union of India v. G. Kiran & Ors.

in Deepa E.V. v. Union of India and Ors.1, Gaurav Pradhan v. State
of Rajasthan2, Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujarat Public
Service Commission3, Union of India v. Sajib Roy4.
13. Learned Counsel Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, representing the UPSC
has supported the submissions made by the Learned Additional
Solicitor General of India. Similarly, Learned Senior Counsel, Mr.
Nikhil Goel, appearing for the Respondent No. 3, and the Appellant
in the connected appeal, has also supported the said contentions
and urged that once the benefit of relaxation has been obtained
by Respondent No. 1 in the Preliminary Examination, he cannot
claim ‘General Insider’ vacancy at a later stage at the time of cadre
allocation, therefore, the decisions of the Tribunal and High Court
are liable to be set-aside.
14. Per contra, Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj appearing
for Respondent No. 1 submits that the Preliminary Examination
is merely a screening test to shortlist candidates for the Main
Examination. Clause 2 of Section I of Appendix I to the Exam Rules,
2013 clearly stipulates that the marks obtained in the Preliminary
Examination by the candidates will not be counted for determining
the final order of merit. As such the marks obtained by Respondent
No. 1 in Preliminary Examination, taking benefit of relaxed standards
applicable to SC Candidate cannot be used adversely for the purpose
of cadre allocation to him.
15. It is urged, once a candidate performs on merit, surpasses the
‘General Standards’ and qualifies the Main Examination, securing a
higher rank than Respondent No. 3 i.e. General category candidate in
the final list, the grant of initial relaxation in Preliminary Examination
fades into insignificance. It is said that denial of the General Insider
vacancy to a more meritorious candidate on the pretext of relaxation
availed in the Preliminary Examination which doesn’t even form the
basis of final merit list, violates the principles of meritocracy and
substantive equality as enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India.

1 (2017) 12 SCC 680
2 (2018) 11 SCC 352
3 (2019) 7 SCC 383
4 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1943
150 [2026] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

16. Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the reasoning of the
High Court that the term ‘General Standards’ in Paragraph 9 of the
Policy refers to the ‘General Qualifying Standard’ as contained in
Rule 14(i) of Exam Rules, which Respondent No. 1 undisputedly
met and surpassed. In support of these contentions, judgements of
this court in Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of UP5, Ajithkumar P.
v. Remin K. R.6 and Vikas Sankhala and Others v. Vikas Kumar
Agarwal and Others7 has been relied upon and prayed for dismissal
of these appeals.

APPRECIATION OF ARGUMENTS
17. After having heard learned counsels and upon perusal of the material
placed, in our view, the question that falls for our consideration is
whether a reserved category candidate who availed relaxation while
qualifying Preliminary Examination, though secured more marks than
cut-off of the General Category candidate in the Main Examination
and Interview for personality test and secured place in the final
merit list, can be considered as ‘Insider General’ candidate for cadre
allocation against an unreserved vacancy?
18. In order to adjudicate upon the issue, it is pertinent to refer to the
relevant provisions of Rules, 1, 13, 14 and 17 of the Exam Rules,
2013 which are reproduced as hereunder -
“Rule 1. Indian Forest Service Examination will be a two
tier (sic) examination – a preliminary screening examination
followed by a Main Examination and Interviesw. For
screening suitable number of candidates for the 2nd stage
of the Examination to be named as Indian Forest Service
(Main) Examination, all candidates would be required to
qualify Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination (hereinafter
called the Preliminary Examination).

xxx xxx xxx
Rule 13. Candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying
marks in the Preliminary Examination as may be fixed by

5 (2010) 3 SCC 119
6 (2015) 16 SCC 778
7 (2017) 1 SCC 350
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 151

Union of India v. G. Kiran & Ors.

the Commission at their discretion shall be admitted to the
Indian Forest Service (Main) Examination (Written); and
candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks
in the Main Examination (Written) as may be fixed by the
Commission at their discretion shall be summoned by
them for an interview for a personality test;
The minimum qualifying marks as determined above, may
be relaxable at the discretion of the Commission, in favour
of Physically Handicapped candidates, in order to fill up
the vacancies reserved for them, if any.
Provided that candidates belonging to the Scheduled
Castes or Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes
may be summoned for an interview for personality test
by the commission by applying relaxed standards in the
Preliminary Examination as well as Main Examination
(Written) if the Commission is of the opinion that sufficient
number of candidates from these communities are not likely
to be summoned for interview for a personality test on the
basis of the general standard in order to fill up vacancies
reserved for them.

xxx xxx xxx
Rule 14. (i) After interview, the candidates will be arranged
by the Commission in the order of merit as disclosed by
aggregate marks finally awarded to each candidate in the
Main Examination. Thereafter, the commission shall, for the
purpose of recommending candidates against unreserved
vacancies, fix a qualifying mark (hereinafter referred to as
general qualifying standard) with reference to the number
of unreserved vacancies to be filled up on the basis of
the Main Examination.
(ii) The candidates belonging to any of the Scheduled
Castes, the Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes
may to the extent of the number of vacancies reserved for
the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the Other
Backward Classes be recommended by the Commission
by a relaxed standard, subject to the fitness of these
candidates for selection to the Service.
152 [2026] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Provided that the candidates belonging to the Scheduled
Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward
Classes who have been recommended by the Commission
without resorting to any relaxations/concessions in
the eligibility or selection criteria, at any stage of the
examination, shall not be adjusted against the vacancies
reserved for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes
and Other Backward Classes.

xxx xxx xxx
Rule 17. (i) A candidate who qualifies the Preliminary
Examination shall be required to indicate the Detailed
Application Form his/her choice in the order of preference
from amongst the various State Cadres including his/her
‘Home State’ in case he/she is appointed to the Indian
Forest Service.
(ii) the cadre allotment to candidates appointed to Indian
Forest Service will be governed by the policy of cadre
allotment in force at the time of allotment of cadre. Due
consideration will be given at the time of making allocation
on the results of the examination to the preferences
expressed by candidate for various cadres at the time of
his/her application.”
19. After going through Rule 1, it is evident that IFS examination consists
of two tiers - tier one is of Preliminary Examination and tier two
consists of Main Examination (Written) and Interview. For screening
suitable number of candidates for the 2nd stage i.e., Indian Forest
Service (Main) Examination, all candidates are required to qualify
the Preliminary Examination.
20. Perusal of Rule 13 makes it abundantly clear that after obtaining
minimum qualifying marks in Preliminary Examination, the candidate,
shall be entitled to appear in the Main Examination (Written). The
candidate obtaining minimum qualifying marks in Main Examination
may be summoned for Interview for personality test. The determination
of the minimum qualifying marks to summon a candidate for an
Interview for personality test shall be the discretion of the UPSC.
The proviso confers discretion upon UPSC for applying the ‘Relaxed
Standards’ to the candidates belonging to the SC, ST and OBC
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 153

Union of India v. G. Kiran & Ors.

either in Preliminary or Main Examination (Written) in case sufficient
member of these communities are not likely to be summoned applying
the ‘General Standard’ to fill up the vacancies reserved for these
categories.
21. As per Rule 14, the candidates who obtain qualifying marks in Main
Examination (Written) and are summoned for Interview for personality
test shall be arranged in the order of merit as disclosed by the UPSC
on the basis of the aggregate of marks scored in Main Examination
(Written). After preparation of merit list, the UPSC shall fix qualifying
marks for applying ‘General Qualifying Standards’ for recommending
the candidate commensurate to the available unreserved vacancies,
to be filled up on the basis of the Main Examination. In this view,
Rule 14(i) operates in two parts. First portion deals with preparation
of merit list and latter portion deals with preparation of merit list of
unreserved category applying the general qualifying standards. Rule
14(ii) applies to the candidates belonging to the SC, ST and OBC to
which the UPSC shall make recommendation on basis of ‘Relaxed
Standard’ subject to the fitness of these candidates for selection to
the service. The consequence of availing the ‘Relaxed Standard’ is
stipulated in the proviso to Rule 14(ii), whereby it is clear that if a
candidate has found place in the merit list without availing ‘Relaxed
Standards’ i.e., without resorting to ‘any’ ‘relaxations’ or ‘concessions’
in eligibility or selection criteria ‘at any stage of examination’, they shall
not be adjusted against the vacancies reserved for SC, ST and OBC.
22. In the above context, the word ‘any’ is relatable to relaxations or
concessions either in ‘eligibility’ or any ‘selection criteria’. It further
qualifies that such relaxation/concession can be availed at ‘any stage
of examination’ having relevance to Rule 1 which indicates that all
candidates would be required to qualify the Preliminary Examination
in order to appear in the Main Examination. Therefore, the proviso
throw light by focusing on the issue of relaxations and concessions
in eligibility or selection criteria at any stage of examination. At
this stage, the point to ponder upon is if a candidate obtains such
relaxation or concession in ‘eligibility’ or ‘selection criteria’ what would
be its effect in the matter of cadre allocation, especially in the facts
and circumstances of the case in hand.
23. As per Rule 17 of Exam Rules, 2013, indeed it is correct to say
that only after qualifying the Preliminary Examination the candidate
154 [2026] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

does have a choice to submit the preference for various state cadres
including home state for appointment to the IFS. It is further true that
the State Cadre allotment to the IFS will be governed by the policy
in force at the time of allotment of cadre. In the said context the
policy dated 10th April 2008 amended on 21st April 2011 governing
the cadre allocation of the relevant time assumes significance. Para
9 of the Policy is relevant, therefore, reproduced as thus: -
“9. Notwithstanding what has been said above a reserved
category candidate selected on general standards shall
be eligible for allocation against the available un-reserved
vacancy as per his merit and preference. But if he cannot
be allocated against such vacancy, for he is lower in rank
compared with other general category candidates, he shall
be considered for allocation as per his merit and preference
against the available vacancy of his category.”
24. Upon conjoint reading of the Rules quoted above in juxtaposition to
Clause 9 of the Policy, it is clear that a reserved category candidate
selected applying ‘General Standard’ has eligibility for allocation on
unreserved vacancy as per his merit and preference if he is not
lower in rank from other General category candidates, otherwise he
shall be considered for allocation as per his merit and preference
against the available vacancy of his category. In the said context,
it is clear that for allocation of unreserved vacancy to a candidate
of reserved category, the selection must be on ‘General Standard’
without availing any ‘Relaxed Standard’ in either eligibility or selection
criteria. In case any ‘Relaxed Standard’ has been availed by him, his
allocation of cadre would be as per his merit and preference against
vacancy of his category.
25. After analyzing the Exam Rules, 2013 and the Policy, we find
ourselves at variance with the findings recorded in the Impugned
Order. While dismissing the Writ Petition and affirming the order of the
Tribunal, the thrust of reasoning of the High Court was that ‘General
Standards’ as used in Paragraph 9 of Policy can only mean to be
‘General Qualifying Standard’ as appearing in Rule 14(i) of Exam
Rules, 2013 i.e. qualifying marks fixed by UPSC with reference to
number of unreserved vacancies to be filled up on the basis of the
Main Examination. In other words, the High Court effectively read
Paragraph 9 of the Policy to mean that if a reserved category candidate
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 155

Union of India v. G. Kiran & Ors.

selected acquiring the position in the merit of unreserved category list
obtaining ‘qualifying marks fixed by UPSC with reference to number
of unreserved vacancies on the basis of the Main Examination’ shall
be eligible for allocation against available unreserved vacancies. It
was also observed that the purpose behind providing relaxation in
the nature of age, number of attempts, payment of fees and such
other eligibility criteria in favour of candidates belonging to reserved
category is to ensure a level playing field and that real merit is tested
in the Main Examination (Written) where the mettle of the candidates
is put to test. Hence, if the candidates belonging to the reserved
category score better than a general merit candidate in the tier two
examination, such candidate cannot be denied cadre allocation in
open category insider cadre vacancy.
26. We are unable to subscribe to and confirm the view taken by the
High Court. In our view, the High Court lost sight of the mandate
of Rule 1 which clearly prescribes that IFS Examination consists of
two tiers - first tier is Preliminary Examination followed by tier two
involving Main Exam (Written) and Interview. Only those candidates
who are found suitable in the first tier may avail entry for the tier two.
All the candidates are required to qualify Preliminary Examination for
participation in further selection process by way of Main Examination
(Written) and Interview. Rule 13 and its proviso contemplate that
only those candidates who obtain minimum qualifying marks as
prescribed on discretion by UPSC in the Preliminary Examination
shall be admitted to the Main Examination (Written) and all those
candidates who obtain minimum qualifying marks as prescribed
by UPSC in the Main Examination (Written) shall be called upon
for an Interview for a personality test. The proviso to the said rule
provides for applying relaxed standards in Preliminary as well as the
Main Examination (Written) to SC, ST and OBC candidates for the
purpose of summoning them for interview if such candidate does not
come within the general standards in order to fill up the vacancies
of reserved category and to facilitate due representation.
27. Further, Rule 14(i) deals with preparation of merit list after a
written and interview for personality test. Thereafter, it deals with
recommending the candidates against unreserved vacancies applying
general standards with reference to number of unreserved vacancies.
Rule 14(ii) deals with the situation for the candidates of SC, ST and
OBC where discretion has been conferred upon UPSC to grant
156 [2026] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

relaxed standards to the fittest of these candidates for selection
to the service. While dealing with those relaxed standards, it has
been made clear in proviso that the candidates of SC, ST and OBC
recommended without resorting to ‘any’, ‘relaxation’ or ‘concession’
in ‘eligibility’ or ‘selection criteria’ at ‘any stage of examination’ may
be adjusted against the vacancies of unreserved category. The
natural corollary to the above makes it clear those reserved category
candidates who have availed of any relaxation or concession at ‘any
stage of the examination’ are not eligible to be adjusted against
unreserved vacancies.
28. On appreciation of the rules referred above, it is clear that any
relaxation or concession in eligibility or in selection criteria, if taken
at any stage of examination by such candidate of SC, ST and OBC,
they may not get any benefit to claim the vacancy of unreserved
category, in particular, in the context of Rule 17(1) of the Exam Rule,
2013 seeking allocation of General Insider vacancy in home State
cadre as it would be contrary to paragraph 9 of the Policy.
29. It is relevant to emphasis that Rule 1 clearly stipulates that IFS
examination involves two tiers. Without qualifying first tier i.e.,
Preliminary Examination, a candidate may not be in a position to
participate in Main Examination (Written). Therefore, even though
the Preliminary Examination is merely a screening test and marks
obtained may not be counted for determining final merit as per Clause
2 of Section I of Appendix-I of Exam Rules, 2013, nonetheless, it
is an integral stage of the examination and relaxation availed by
any candidate even at the stage of Preliminary Examination cannot
escape the phraseology of proviso to Rule 14(ii) i.e., ‘relaxed standard’
granted at ‘any stage of examination’.
30. At this juncture, we can profitably refer to the judgment of this Court
in Deepa E.V. (Supra). In the said case, the appellant, who was an
OBC category candidate, sought appointment on general unreserved
vacancy on the ground that the marks obtained by her was over and
above the minimum cut-off marks prescribed for general category
candidates. While considering a similar provisions as per O.M. of
Department of Personnel and Training dated 01.07.1998, it was held
that when a candidate avails age relaxation, he is not entitled to be
adjusted against the unreserved category. The relevant paragraph
is reproduced as thus –
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 157

Union of India v. G. Kiran & Ors.

“7. On a combined reading of Rule 9 of the Export
Inspection Agency (Recruitment) Rules, 1980 and also
the proceedings dated 1-7-1998, we find that there is
an express bar for the candidates belonging to SC/ST/
OBC who have availed relaxation for being considered
for general category candidates.”
The logic applied in above case applies with equal force to relaxation
in qualifying marks at the preliminary stage as it has happened in
the present appeals.
31. We also find merit in the reliance placed by the Appellant on the
decision in Gaurav Pradhan (Supra). In that case, the post in
question was of Police Constables and Sub-Inspectors of Police
and the recruitment process was of the year 2010. Vide an earlier
circular dated 24.06.2008, it was provided that the members of SC/ST/
OBC can compete against non-reserved vacancies and be counted
against them, in case they have not taken any concession (like that
of age, etc.) available to them other than that relating to payment
of examination fees in case of direct recruitment. Thereafter, vide
a circular dated 11.05.2011, without superseding earlier circular of
2008, it was provided that if a candidate belonging to BC/SBC/SC/
ST, irrespective of whether they have availed of or not any of the
special concession which are available to them, secures more marks
than the marks obtained by last unreserved category candidate
who is selected, such a candidate belonging to aforementioned
categories shall be counted against unreserved category vacancies
and not reserved vacancies. On filing writ petitions before High
Court by various general category candidates, the learned Single
Judge dismissed the same which came to be confirmed with certain
modifications by the Division Bench. While allowing the appeals, this
Court observed thus:
“33. In a recent judgment, this Court has occasion to
consider the judgment of this Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh
case [Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC
119 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 772] . The learned counsel for
the appellants has placed much reliance on the judgment
of this Court dated 6-4-2017 in Deepa E.V. v. Union of India
[Deepa E.V. v. Union of India, (2017) 12 SCC 680 : (2018)
1 SCC (L&S) 100] . It is necessary to notice the facts of the
158 [2026] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

case and the issues decided by this Court in Deepa E.V.
[Deepa E.V. v. Union of India, (2017) 12 SCC 680 : (2018)
1 SCC (L&S) 100] The appellant before this Court was an
OBC category candidate who claimed that she should be
treated as general category candidate. The appellant had
availed the age relaxation as OBC category candidate. A
writ petition was filed by the appellant claiming that she
should be treated as candidate in general category. The
learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by the
judgment dated 16-1-2015 [Deepa E.V. v. Union of India,
2015 SCC OnLine Ker 2470] which judgment was affirmed
[Deepa E.V. v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Ker 21264]
by the Division Bench in the writ appeal. In para 2 of the
judgment, facts were noted to the following effect: (Deepa
E.V. case [Deepa E.V. v. Union of India, (2017) 12 SCC
680 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 100] , SCC p. 681)
“2. The appellant applied for the post of Laboratory
Assistant Grade II in Export Inspection Council of
India functioning under the Ministry of Commerce and
Industry, Government of India. The appellant belongs
to Dheevara community which is one of the “Other
Backward Class”. Since the appellant was aged 26
years, she got age relaxation, as was granted to
OBC category candidates. The appellant was one
of the eleven candidates from OBC who were called
for interview. The appellant secured 82 marks (in
the list of candidates from OBC category). One Ms
Serena Joseph (OBC), who secured 93 marks was
selected and appointed.”

xxx xxx xxx
37. The judgment of this Court in Deepa E.V. [Deepa E.V. v.
Union of India, (2017) 12 SCC 680 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S)
100] fully supports the case of the appellants. In Deepa
E.V. case [Deepa E.V. v. Union of India, (2017) 12 SCC
680 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 100] also the Circular of the
Central Government dated 1-7-1998/2-7-1997 provided the
relevant provision which is to the following effect: (SCC
pp. 682-83, para 6)
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 159

Union of India v. G. Kiran & Ors.

“6. … ‘… In other words, when a relaxed standard
is applied in selecting SC/ST/OBC candidates, for
example in the age-limit, experience, qualification,
permitted number of chances in written examination,
extended zone of consideration larger than 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.’ ”
(emphasis in original)

xxx xxx xxx
46. The Division Bench [Rajesh Singh v. State of Rajasthan,
2014 SCC OnLine Raj 6470 : (2014) 2 RLW 1585] as well
as the learned counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan
has relied on the Circular dated 11-5-2011. The Division
Bench has observed that the Circular dated 11-5-2011 did
not change the rules of game. The following observation
has been made with regard to the Circular dated 11-5-2011:
(Rajesh Singh case [Rajesh Singh v. State of Rajasthan,
2014 SCC OnLine Raj 6470 : (2014) 2 RLW 1585] , SCC
OnLine Raj para 57)
“57. In the instant case, the State Government in
supersession of its earlier policy decision regarding
treatment to be given to the candidates belonging
to reserved category who are selected against
unreserved category vacancies, issued directives
for guidance to the appointing authorities vide the
Circular dated 11-5-2011 that neither changed the
eligibility criteria seeking employment nor manner
and method of selection of suitable candidates and
in our considered view, the Circular dated 11-5-2011
did not change rules of the game after the game is
played or process of selection is initiated as observed
by the learned Single Judge [Madan Lal v. State of
Rajasthan, 2012 SCC OnLine Raj 1182] , [Manish
Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 2013 SCC OnLine
160 [2026] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Raj 4100] but such policy decisions are always
within realm of judicial review and this is what the
Court considered and examined policy decision of
the Government impugned.”

xxx xxx xxx
49. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the
considered opinion that the candidates belonging to
SC/ST/BC, who had taken relaxation of age, were not
entitled to be migrated to the unreserved vacancies; the
State of Rajasthan has migrated such candidates who
have taken concession of age against the unreserved
vacancies which resulted displacement of a large number
of candidates who were entitled to be selected against the
unreserved category vacancies. The candidates belonging
to unreserved category who could not be appointed due
to migration of candidates belonging to SC/ST/BC were
clearly entitled for appointment which was denied to them
on the basis of the above illegal interpretation put by the
State. We, however, also take notice of the fact that the
reserved category candidates who had taken benefit of age
relaxation and were migrated on the unreserved category
candidates, are working for more than last five years. The
reserved category candidates who were appointed on
migration against unreserved vacancies are not at fault
in any manner. Hence, we are of the opinion that SC/ST/
BC candidates who have been so migrated in reserved
vacancies and appointed, should not be displaced and
allowed to continue in respective posts. On the other hand,
the unreserved candidates who could not be appointed
due to the above illegal migration are also entitled for
appointment as per their merit. The equities have to be
adjusted by this Court.”
(emphasis supplied)

In the said case, this Court while affirming the view taken in Deepa
E.V. (Supra), held that reserved category candidates who had availed
corresponding relaxations, could not be considered on general/
unreserved vacancies.
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 161

Union of India v. G. Kiran & Ors.

32. Similarly, this court in Niravkumar Dilipbhai (Supra) while considering
an identical factual situation involving a circular barring consideration
of reserved category candidates on unreserved posts observed as
under –
“22. Article 16(4) of the Constitution is an enabling provision
empowering the State to make any provision or reservation
of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of
citizens which in the opinion of the State is not adequately
represented in the service under the State. It is purely a
matter of discretion of the State Government to formulate a
policy for concession, exemption, preference or relaxation
either conditionally or unconditionally in favour of the
backward classes of citizens. The reservation being the
enabling provision, the manner and the extent to which
reservation is provided has to be spelled out from the
orders issued by the Government from time to time.

xxx xxx xxx
23. In the instant case, the State Government has framed
policy for the grant of reservation in favour of SC/ST and
OBC by the Circulars dated 21-1-2000 and 23-7-2004.
The State Government has clarified that when a relaxed
standard is applied in selecting a candidate for SC/ST,
SEBC category in the age-limit, experience, qualification,
permitting number of chances in the written examination,
etc., then candidate of such category selected in the said
manner, shall have to be considered only against his/her
reserved post. Such a candidate would be deemed as
unavailable for consideration against unreserved post.

xxx xxx xxx
34. There is also no merit in the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant that relaxation in age at the initial
qualifying stage would not fall foul of the Circulars dated
29-1-2000 and 23-7-2004. The distinction sought to be
drawn between the preliminary and final examination is
totally misconceived. It is evident from the advertisement
that a person who avails of an age relaxation at the initial
stage will necessarily avail of the same relaxation even at
162 [2026] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the final stage. We are of the view that the age relaxation
granted to the candidates belonging to SC/ST and SEBC
category in the instant case is an incident of reservation
under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India.”
(emphasis supplied)

The Court affirming the proposition of law stated that once relaxation
has been taken by a reserved category candidate, they cannot be
considered for unreserved vacancies. Inescapably, the aforesaid
judgement also strengthens the view taken by us hereinabove
interpreting the rules that if a reserved category candidate takes
benefit of relaxation though at initial stage, it will effectively amount
to taking relaxation even at the final stage of the selection process
because without giving relaxation to him, he was not in a position
to participate in the Main examination and to set forth his claim of
cadre allocation.
33. Very recently in Sajib Roy (Supra), this court had the occasion to
deal with a similar factual matrix as observed hereunder–
“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.

xxx xxx xxx
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
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 163

Union of India v. G. Kiran & Ors.

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.”
34. At this stage, pertinently the judgements relied upon by the learned
senior counsel for Respondent No. 1 in their support are necessarily
required to be appreciated. In Jitendra Kumar Singh (Supra), this court
while considering whether an OBC candidate who applied exercising
his option as a reserved category candidate, would be eligible to be
considered against an unreserved vacancy, if he secures more marks
than the last candidate in general category. Nonetheless, in the said
case, this court was considering the issue in reference to instructions
issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh dated 25.03.1994 which specifically
provided for migration of reserved category candidates to unreserved
vacancies despite they having availed any facility or relaxation (like
relaxation in age limit) available to reserved category. Therefore, it is
distinguishable on facts of the present appeals.
35. In Ajithkumar P. (Supra), this Court was considering a factual
situation wherein the reserved category candidate had availed
relaxation in the preliminary examination, however, found that the
said Preliminary Examination was not having any statutory basis.
Therefore, this judgement is also distinguishable on facts and will not
come to rescue to the case of Respondent No. 1. As far as Vikas
Sankhala (Supra) is concerned, it involved recruitment to the post
of teachers whereby relaxation in minimum pass marks in Teachers
Eligibility Test to reserved category candidates was granted by state
government in following manner –
a. 10% to persons belonging to SC/ST/OBC/SBC/General-
Women
b. 15% to all women of SC/ST/OBC/SBC and widowed /
divorced women
c. 20% to persons covered under PwD
Various candidates belonging to general category candidates came
before this Court in Appeal on the ground that minimum qualifying
marks with respect to TET was 60% and any relaxation thereto
meant availing relaxation pursuant to reservation and thus, migration
164 [2026] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

of such candidates who took benefit of above indicated relaxations
to the unreserved/general vacancies was impermissible. The said
appeals were allowed with following observations –
“80. Having regard to the respective submissions noted
above, first aspect that needs consideration is as to whether
relaxation in TET pass marks would amount to concession
in the recruitment process. The High Court has held to
be so on the premise that Para 9(a) dealing with such
relaxation in TET marks forms part of the document which
relates to the recruitment procedure. It is difficult to accept
this rationale or analogy. Passing of TET examination is
a condition of eligibility for appointment as a teacher. It is
a necessary qualification without which a candidate is not
eligible to be considered for appointment. This was clearly
mentioned in the Guidelines/Notification dated 11-2-2011.
These Guidelines pertain to conducting of TET; basic
features whereof have already been pointed out above.
Even Para 9 which provides for concessions that can be
given to certain reserved categories deals with “qualifying
marks” that is to be obtained in TET examination. Thus,
a person who passes TET examination becomes eligible
to participate in the selection process as and when such
selection process for filling up of the posts of primary
teachers is to be undertaken by the State. On the other
hand, when it comes to recruitment of teachers, the method
for appointment of teachers is altogether different. Here,
merit list of successful candidates is to be prepared on the
basis of marks obtained under different heads. 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
[2026] 1 S.C.R. 165

Union of India v. G. Kiran & Ors.

14 marks in 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.”
(emphasis supplied)

Therefore, it is clear that the relaxations in TET marks were not
considered to be a concession. For this reason, the said judgement
is also distinguishable.
36. In the facts of the present case, the General category cut-off for
the Preliminary Examination was fixed at 267. Respondent No. 1
secured 247.18 marks. Had the Respondent No. 1 been put against
the general standard, his candidature would have been terminated
at the first stage i.e., the Preliminary Examination. His candidature
succeeded in the first stage of the examination because of the relaxed
standards allowed in the Preliminary Examination for SC candidates
i.e. 233 marks. After availing the benefit of this relaxation for admission
to the Main Examination, Respondent No. 1 cannot subsequently
claim to have been selected on “General Standard” merely due to his
performance in the subsequent stages surpassed the general standard.
Therefore, if a candidate who has resorted a relaxation at any stage
of examination, would not fall within the purview of the proviso to Rule
14(ii) of the Exam Rules, 2013 and in that situation, for the purpose
of the applicable Policy for cadre allocation, he would not fall within
the list of candidates selected on ‘General Standard’ claiming General
Insider vacancy of home state cadre as insider candidate..
37. In light of the above exposition of law, we are of the opinion that in
the present fact situation, the ‘General Insider’ vacancy in Karnataka
was rightfully allocated to Respondent No. 3, who qualified the
Preliminary Examination, Main Examination, and Interview on general
standard. It is needless to say, Respondent No. 1, having qualified
166 [2026] 1 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

the Preliminary Examination availing ‘relaxed standard’, becoming
eligible for the Main Examination must be considered against the
reserved vacancies only and cannot be considered on general/
unreserved vacancies for the purpose of cadre allocation.
38. In our view, the High Court while affirming the judgment of the Tribunal
has glossed over Rule 1, intent of Rule 13 and intent of proviso to
Rule 13 as well as the real meaning of Rule 14 and proviso thereto
along with paragraph 9 of Policy. Therefore, the judgments of the
Tribunal and the High Court deserve to be set aside.

CONCLUSION
39. In view of the foregoing, we hold that the Tribunal and the High
Court were not correct in interpreting the relevant provisions of
Exam Rules, 2013 and Paragraph 9 of the Policy and committed
mistake in granting the relief to Respondent No. 1. We hold that
Respondent No. 1, having availed the benefit of “Relaxed Standard”
in the Preliminary Examination, cannot be treated as a candidate
selected on “General Standard”. Consequently, he is not entitled to
be allocated against the “General Insider” vacancy in the Karnataka
Cadre in place of Respondent No.3.
40. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The impugned final judgment
and order dated 06.08.2019 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at
Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 54254 of 2016 (S-CAT) connected with
Writ Petition No. 18947 of 2016 (S-CAT), affirming the order of the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench dated 15.03.2016 in
O.A. No. 170/00239/2015, are hereby set aside. The notification dated
13.03.2015 issued by the MoEFCC insofar allocating the Karnataka
Cadre to Respondent No. 3 and Tamil Nadu Cadre to Respondent
No. 1 is upheld as correct in eyes of law and without any alteration.
41. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall
be no order as to costs.

Result of the case: Appeals allowed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey