Reservation roster can't be basis for selection process: SC

The Supreme Court has clarified that a candidate belonging to a reserved category who secures marks higher than the cut-off prescribed for the General Category must be treated as having qualified against an open or unreserved post, and not against a reserved vacancy.

A Bench of Justices M M Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma delivered the ruling on January 16, 2026, while allowing an appeal filed by the Airport Authority of India (AAI) against a judgment of the Kerala High Court that had directed appointment of a candidate from the unreserved category to a post filled during a 2013 recruitment process.

The Court reaffirmed that the reservation roster is not a tool for conducting selections, but a mechanism used to determine the number of posts available under different categories at the stage of recruitment planning. It becomes operational only after the selection process is complete, when appointments are made and employees enter service.

The Bench explained that maintaining a reservation register or roster serves two limited purposes. First, it ensures that at any given point of time, representation of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes in a cadre does not exceed the constitutionally permitted quota. Second, it helps determine the number of vacancies available under each category for future recruitment. The roster is not meant to override merit during selection.

The case arose from a recruitment exercise conducted by the Airport Authority of India in 2013 for the post of Junior Assistant (Fire Service). A total of 245 vacancies were notified, out of which 122 were earmarked for the unreserved category. After the selection process, only 158 candidates were appointed. The respondent, Sham Krishna B, was placed at serial number 10 in the list of candidates not selected under the unreserved category.

Sham Krishna challenged the selection before the Kerala High Court, arguing that the recruitment was vitiated because all notified vacancies were not filled and because reserved category candidates were adjusted against unreserved posts. A single judge of the High Court accepted this argument and held that the reservation policy had not been properly applied. The Division Bench upheld this view and directed appointment of the respondent, along with directions to strictly follow the reservation roster.

Challenging this decision, the Airport Authority of India argued before the Supreme Court that the High Court had misunderstood the operation of reservation law. The Authority submitted that reserved category candidates who had scored higher marks than general category candidates were rightly placed in the unreserved merit list. It was also argued that the writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay, as it was filed after the selection process had concluded.

The respondent, on the other hand, contended that vacancies advertised for the unreserved category should have been filled exclusively by unreserved candidates, and that reserved category candidates should have been confined to their respective quotas. It was argued that since reserved category vacancies remained unfilled, migrating reserved candidates to general category posts was impermissible.

Rejecting this reasoning, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had failed to appreciate a fundamental principle of reservation law. The Court observed that selection is governed by merit, while reservation operates at the level of vacancy allocation. A reserved category candidate who competes without any relaxation or concession and scores higher than general category candidates does not consume a reserved vacancy. Instead, such a candidate strengthens merit and is treated as selected against an unreserved post.

The Bench relied on its recent judgment in Rajasthan High Court v. Rajat Yadav, delivered in December 2025, which had settled the legal position on this issue. The Court reiterated that this principle is no longer res integra and has been consistently upheld to ensure both fairness and efficiency in public employment.

Applying this settled law to the facts, the Court noted that no relaxation or concession had been extended to reserved category candidates in the AAI recruitment. All 122 unreserved vacancies were filled strictly on the basis of merit. Candidates from reserved categories were adjusted against unreserved posts only because they had scored higher marks than general category candidates. This, the Court held, was entirely lawful.

The Supreme Court concluded that once all unreserved vacancies had been filled on merit, no direction could be issued to appoint additional candidates from the unreserved category. Accordingly, it set aside the judgments of both the single judge and the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court.

The Court allowed the appeal filed by the Airport Authority of India and held that the appointment process had been conducted in accordance with settled principles of reservation law.

Case Title: Airport Authority of India & Ors v. Sham Krishna B & Ors

Date: January 16, 2026