Reserved vs General Quota: Supreme Court Rules SC/ST Candidates Using Relaxations Ineligible for General Seats

The Supreme Court has on September 9, 2025 set aside a High Court order that had directed appointment of certain candidates belonging to reserved categories against unreserved posts in the Railway Protection Force. The candidates had applied under the reserved category and availed relaxation in age and physical measurements during recruitment, but later sought to be considered in the unreserved category on the basis that they had obtained marks higher than the last selected candidate in that category.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi held that the High Court erred in directing the respondents-writ petitioners to be selected against unreserved posts. The court said this was contrary to the bar envisaged in Standing Order No. 85 read with Revised Directive No. 29.

The bench noted that Para 14(f) of Standing Order No. 85 specifically provided that only those reserved category candidates who had not availed any relaxation in age, physical measurements or qualifying marks in the written test could be appointed in the unreserved category. This provision expressly barred reserved candidates who had availed such concessions from migrating to unreserved category posts. The court further held that this clause would prevail over Para 14(b) of Standing Order No. 78, which had earlier permitted such migration. The later Standing Order was a partial modification of the earlier one and therefore had an overriding effect.

The judgment clarified that Para 14(f) of Standing Order No. 85 imposes an embargo on migration of reserved category candidates who avail age or physical measurement relaxations to unreserved vacancies, even if they secure marks above the cut-off prescribed for unreserved seats.

The Supreme Court observed that some of the writ petitioners in any case had failed to score above the unreserved cut-off or had not qualified in their respective trade tests. The High Court had failed to account for these factual deficiencies and had instead mechanically relied on the decision in Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of UP (2010) to allow their petitions. The bench pointed out that Jitendra Kumar Singh was not applicable in situations where recruitment rules themselves barred migration of reserved candidates who had availed relaxations in age or physical standards.

The court referred to its earlier decision in Union of India & Ors v. Sajib Roy, also decided on September 9, 2025, where it had clarified that Jitendra Kumar Singh cannot apply when the governing recruitment rules prohibit such migration.

The case before the court arose out of an employment notice issued on December 6, 2013 by the Railway Board inviting applications for 659 posts in seven categories of ancillary services within the Railway Protection Force and Railway Protection Special Force. These included Constable (Water Carrier), Constable (Safaiwala), Constable (Washerman), Constable (Barber), Constable (Mali), Constable (Tailor) and Constable (Cobbler). The number of posts was later increased to 763. As some vacancies remained unfilled, several candidates approached the High Court seeking mandamus for appointment against these unreserved posts.

The Railway Protection Force argued before the High Court that though some SC/ST candidates had obtained marks above the general cut-off, they were ineligible to be considered in the unreserved category because they had benefited from relaxations in age or physical measurements. This was consistent with Standing Order No. 85 of March 5, 2009. The petitioners, however, relied upon Standing Order No. 78 of February 21, 2008, which allowed migration to the unreserved category. The High Court accepted their contention and directed their appointment.

Setting aside this order, the Supreme Court held that the later Standing Order superseded the earlier one and the High Court had erred in relying on Jitendra Kumar Singh without considering the effect of Standing Order No. 85.

In a connected matter, the bench also considered the grievance of a general category candidate who had appeared for the post of Assistant Commandant (Executive) in the Central Industrial Security Force. The minimum cut-off in the general category was 364 marks, while he had secured 363. He challenged the appointment of a Scheduled Tribe candidate against an unreserved post who had scored 366 marks. The High Court had dismissed his writ petition and held that the Office Memorandum of July 1, 1998 did not extend to relaxed physical standards such as height or weight, which varied depending on gender or geographical location.

The Supreme Court endorsed this view and dismissed his appeal. It observed that the 1998 memorandum did not state that concessions in physical measurements availed by a reserved candidate would disentitle them from consideration under the unreserved category if they had secured marks above the general cut-off. The interpretation given by the High Court was consistent with the Union government’s position that the memorandum did not prohibit migration in such cases.

Accordingly, while the court disallowed migration of reserved candidates availing age or measurement relaxations under the Railway Protection Force Standing Orders, it upheld the migration of an ST candidate in the CISF recruitment who had scored higher than the last general category candidate, as the relevant rules and office memorandum did not bar such migration.

Case Title: Railway Protection Force & Ors v. Prem Chand Kumar & Ors

Bench: Justices Surya Kant & Joymalya Bagchi

Date of Judgement: September 9, 2025