Union Of India vs. G. Kiran

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4743 of 2020)
UNION OF INDIA ... APPELLANT
versus
G. KIRAN & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
with
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4067 of 2022)
ANTONY S MARIYAPPA …..APPELLANT
versus
G. KIRAN & ORS. …..RESPONDENTS
J U D G M E N T
J.K. Maheshwari J.
Leave granted.
1.
2. Assailing the final judgment and order dated 06.08.2019
passed in Writ Petition No. 18947 of 2016 (S-CAT) connected with
1

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 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 ‘ ’), allocating Tamil Nadu Cadre
MoEFCC
to Respondent No. 1 instead of Karnataka, Respondent No. 1
2

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.
3

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
‘ ) for the purpose of filling vacancies in the
Exam Rules, 2013’
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.
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
4

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: –

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
th
in the Main Examination and Interview, on 29 January 2014, the
Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘ UPSC ’ )
recommended total 85 candidates for appointment as IFS.
5

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
th st
Policy issued on 10 April 2008 later amended on 21 April 2011
(hereinafter referred to as ‘Policy’ ), the UOI vide notification dated
13.03.2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘ impugned notification ’)
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
6

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.
The High Court was of the view that since Respondent No. 1
11.
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
7

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 in Deepa E.V. v. Union of India and
1 2
Ors. , Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan , Niravkumar
3
Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujarat Public Service Commission ,
4
Union of India v. Sajib Roy .
1 (2017) 12 SCC 680
2
(2018) 11 SCC 352
3 (2019) 7 SCC 383
4 (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1943
8

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
9

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.
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
10

5
this court in ,
Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of UP Ajithkumar
6
and
P. v. Remin K. R. Vikas Sankhala and Others v. Vikas
7
has been relied upon and prayed for
Kumar Agarwal and Others
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 -
5
(2010) 3 SCC 119
6 (2015) 16 SCC 778
7 (2017) 1 SCC 350
11

“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 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.
12

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.
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. ”
13

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
nd
screening suitable number of candidates for the 2 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 either in Preliminary or Main
Examination (Written) in case sufficient member of these
14

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
15

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
16

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 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
th st
the said context the policy dated 10 April 2008 amended on 21
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. ”
17

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
18

‘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 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
19

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
20

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 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
21

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
22

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 –
“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. ”
23

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
24

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:

25

26

27

In the said case, this Court while affirming the view taken in
Deepa
(Supra), held that reserved category candidates who had
E.V.
availed corresponding relaxations, could not be considered on
general/unreserved vacancies.
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
In the instant case, the State Government has framed
23.
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
28

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
29

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 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. ”
30

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
31

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 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
32

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 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
33

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
34

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 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.
35

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
36

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.
…….…………….…………J.
(J.K. MAHESHWARI)
…….…………….…………J.
(VIJAY BISHNOI)
New Delhi;
January 6, 2026.
37