Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1084
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. /2025
(@ SLP (C) Nos.21392-21393/2019)
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SAJIB ROY RESPONDENT(S)
With
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. /2025
(@ SLP (C) Nos.21394-21395/2019)
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. /2025
(@ SLP (C) Nos.21926-21927/2019)
And
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. /2025
(@ SLP (C) Nos.22432-22433/2019)
J U D G M E N T
Joymalya Bagchi, J.
1. Leave granted.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NITIN TALREJA
Date: 2025.09.09
16:29:01 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 22
2. Appellants have assailed common impugned judgment
1
and order dated 12.10.2018 and order dated
2
26.02.2019 whereby the respondents-writ petitioners
who had applied as reserved candidates 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 –
3
Staff Selection Commission 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
4
given to various reserved candidates . For OBC
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
3
SSC for short
4
Employment Notification no. F. No.3/1/2014–P&P-I (vol-II), Para 4A
Page 2 of 22
candidates, i.e., the respondents-writ petitioners, age
5
relaxation was 3 years .
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 &
6
Ors , the High Court held that the refusal to permit
5
Para 4B of the aforementioned notification
6
(2010) 3 SCC 119
Page 3 of 22
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
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
Page 4 of 22
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
Page 5 of 22
‘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 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.”
Page 6 of 22
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
7
interpretation of the relevant statute , government
8 9
order and instructions regulating the selection
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
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
Page 7 of 22
interview. The government instructions dated
25.03.1994 permitted reserved candidates availing such
10
concessions to be adjusted against unreserved seats .
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
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.
Page 8 of 22
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.
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
Page 9 of 22
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
11
application. In Quinn v. Leathem , Lord Halsbury
remarked:-
“….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,
11
[1901] AC 495 (HL)
Page 10 of 22
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
12
Mills & Anr , 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
Page 11 of 22
“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 .
13
19. In Deepa E. V. v. Union of India & Ors , 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
13
(2017) 12 SCC 680
Page 12 of 22
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 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.”
14
20. Considering similar embargo in the recruitment
process, another Coordinate Bench in Gaurav Pradhan
15
& Ors v. State of Rajasthan & Ors , 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
14
Para 6.2 of circular dated 24.06.2008
15
(2018) 11 SCC 352
Page 13 of 22
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
16
& Ors and affirmed by a three judge Bench in
Government (NCT of Delhi) & Ors v. Pradeep Kumar &
17
Ors .
22. On the other hand, respondents-writ petitioners have
relied on Vikas Sankhala & Ors v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal
18 19
& Ors , Saurav Yadav & Ors v. State of UP & Ors ,
20
Ajithkumar P. & Ors. v. Remin K. R. & Ors and Sadhana
21
Singh Dangi & Ors v. Pinki Asati & Ors , 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 to migration would be in
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
Page 14 of 22
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
22
Test 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.
22
TET for short
Page 15 of 22
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 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
Page 16 of 22
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
23
applicable to the selection process did not put a
restriction on selection of the reserved candidate
availing concession in TET marks for appointment in
23
See Para 73 and 74 in Vikas Sankhala (supra)
Page 17 of 22
unreserved seats provided they scored higher than the
last selected unreserved candidate.
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
Page 18 of 22
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
24
the general category or open category .
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
24
See Para 57 in Saurav Yadav (supra)
Page 19 of 22
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
25
Chaudhary & Ors , the cut off marks was reduced for
both OBC and general candidates and no special
25
(2022) 11 SCC 779
Page 20 of 22
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.
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.
Page 21 of 22
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.
………………………………………., J
( SURYA KANT )
………………………………………, J
( JOYMALYA BAGCHI )
New Delhi,
September 09, 2025.
Page 22 of 22
2025 INSC 1084
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. /2025
(@ SLP (C) Nos.21392-21393/2019)
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SAJIB ROY RESPONDENT(S)
With
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. /2025
(@ SLP (C) Nos.21394-21395/2019)
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. /2025
(@ SLP (C) Nos.21926-21927/2019)
And
CIVIL APPEAL NOs. /2025
(@ SLP (C) Nos.22432-22433/2019)
J U D G M E N T
Joymalya Bagchi, J.
1. Leave granted.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NITIN TALREJA
Date: 2025.09.09
16:29:01 IST
Reason:
Page 1 of 22
2. Appellants have assailed common impugned judgment
1
and order dated 12.10.2018 and order dated
2
26.02.2019 whereby the respondents-writ petitioners
who had applied as reserved candidates 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 –
3
Staff Selection Commission 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
4
given to various reserved candidates . For OBC
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
3
SSC for short
4
Employment Notification no. F. No.3/1/2014–P&P-I (vol-II), Para 4A
Page 2 of 22
candidates, i.e., the respondents-writ petitioners, age
5
relaxation was 3 years .
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 &
6
Ors , the High Court held that the refusal to permit
5
Para 4B of the aforementioned notification
6
(2010) 3 SCC 119
Page 3 of 22
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
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
Page 4 of 22
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
Page 5 of 22
‘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 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.”
Page 6 of 22
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
7
interpretation of the relevant statute , government
8 9
order and instructions regulating the selection
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
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
Page 7 of 22
interview. The government instructions dated
25.03.1994 permitted reserved candidates availing such
10
concessions to be adjusted against unreserved seats .
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
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.
Page 8 of 22
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.
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
Page 9 of 22
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
11
application. In Quinn v. Leathem , Lord Halsbury
remarked:-
“….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,
11
[1901] AC 495 (HL)
Page 10 of 22
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
12
Mills & Anr , 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
Page 11 of 22
“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 .
13
19. In Deepa E. V. v. Union of India & Ors , 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
13
(2017) 12 SCC 680
Page 12 of 22
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 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.”
14
20. Considering similar embargo in the recruitment
process, another Coordinate Bench in Gaurav Pradhan
15
& Ors v. State of Rajasthan & Ors , 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
14
Para 6.2 of circular dated 24.06.2008
15
(2018) 11 SCC 352
Page 13 of 22
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
16
& Ors and affirmed by a three judge Bench in
Government (NCT of Delhi) & Ors v. Pradeep Kumar &
17
Ors .
22. On the other hand, respondents-writ petitioners have
relied on Vikas Sankhala & Ors v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal
18 19
& Ors , Saurav Yadav & Ors v. State of UP & Ors ,
20
Ajithkumar P. & Ors. v. Remin K. R. & Ors and Sadhana
21
Singh Dangi & Ors v. Pinki Asati & Ors , 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 to migration would be in
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
Page 14 of 22
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
22
Test 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.
22
TET for short
Page 15 of 22
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 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
Page 16 of 22
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
23
applicable to the selection process did not put a
restriction on selection of the reserved candidate
availing concession in TET marks for appointment in
23
See Para 73 and 74 in Vikas Sankhala (supra)
Page 17 of 22
unreserved seats provided they scored higher than the
last selected unreserved candidate.
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
Page 18 of 22
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
24
the general category or open category .
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
24
See Para 57 in Saurav Yadav (supra)
Page 19 of 22
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
25
Chaudhary & Ors , the cut off marks was reduced for
both OBC and general candidates and no special
25
(2022) 11 SCC 779
Page 20 of 22
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.
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.
Page 21 of 22
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.
………………………………………., J
( SURYA KANT )
………………………………………, J
( JOYMALYA BAGCHI )
New Delhi,
September 09, 2025.
Page 22 of 22