Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1083
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. /2025
(@ SLP (C) No.20866/2019)
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
PREM CHAND KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
With
CIVIL APPEAL NO. /2025
(@ SLP (C) No.28469/2019)
J U D G M E N T
Joymalya Bagchi, J.
SLP (C) No. 20866/2019
1. Leave granted.
1
2. Appellants have assailed judgement and order dated
29.03.2019 whereby the High Court directed the respondents-
writ petitioners, who had applied in reserved category and
availed relaxation in age and/or physical measurements to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NITIN TALREJA
Date: 2025.09.09
16:29:01 IST
Reason:
1
In Writ Petition (C) No. 1350 of 2017.
Page 1 of 19
participate in the recruitment process and had obtained marks
higher than the last selected candidate in the unreserved
category, to be appointed in the unreserved category.
3. Shorn of details, factual matrix giving rise to the appeal is as
follows :–
3.1 On 06.12.2013, Employment Notice No. 1/2013 was
nd
issued by 2 Appellant-Railway Board inviting
applications for filling up 659 posts in seven different
categories, namely, Constable (Water Carrier), Constable
(Safaiwala), Constable (Washerman), Constable (Barber),
Constable (Mali), Constable (Tailor) and Constable
(Cobbler) in the ancillary services of the Railway Protection
Force, including the Railway Protection Special Force.
Subsequently, the number of vacancies advertised were
enhanced to 763.
3.2 Clause 4(c) of the Employment Notification provided that
the candidate must be above 18 years and not more than
25 years to be eligible to apply.
Page 2 of 19
3.3 Upper age relaxation up to 5 years and 3 years was given
2
for SC/ST and OBC candidates respectively . Clause
4(d)(v) provided as follows:-
“No age relaxation is allowed to SC/ST/OBC candidates
applying against unreserved vacancies.”
3.4 Clause 4(e) prescribed the physical measurements of an
eligible candidate with regard to height and chest
(expanded and unexpanded) for male and female
candidates separately. Concessions with regard to physical
measurements for SC/ST and OBC candidates were also
prescribed.
3.5 Clause 5 of the Employment Notification laid down the
selection process stating eligible candidates in all
categories shall be subjected to a written examination,
Physical Efficiency Test (PET), Physical Measurement Test
(PMT) and trade test for recruitment.
3.6 In the written examination, cut-off for general candidates
was 35 percent and cut-off for SC/ST candidates was 30
percent. If successful in the written examination, the
candidate would be called for PET comprising 1600/800
2
Clause 4(d) of the Employment Notice No. 1/2013.
Page 3 of 19
metres run, high jump and long jump. Though no marks
were to be awarded, the candidate must qualify in all the
categories.
3.7 Candidates who succeeded in the written examination,
PET and PMT were to appear in a trade test specific to each
category where such candidate was to secure at least 50
percent marks. The number of candidates who were to be
called for the trade test was not to exceed three times the
prescribed vacancy.
3.8 Certain candidates in the State of Assam filed WP (C) No.
2120/2016 ( Japhed Dhan and others vs. Union of India )
claiming that they had been wrongly disqualified in the
PMT and PET. Consequent upon an interim order of the
Guwahati High Court dated 01.04.2016, 74 vacancies of
the North Frontier Railway in Employment Notice
No.1/2013 were excluded such that the vacancies that
could be filled up was brought down to 689.
3.9 Pursuant to the aforesaid selection process 400 candidates
were empanelled in different categories. Respondents-writ
petitioners were not empanelled as either they had not
qualified trade test for their respective trade(s) (that is, did
Page 4 of 19
not score minimum 50 percent in trade test) or had not
qualified the cut-off for their respective trade(s) in their
reserved category or there was no vacancy in their trade.
4. As a number of vacancies in various categories remained
unfilled, respondents-writ petitioners approached the High
Court praying for a mandamus to appoint them against the
unfilled posts.
5. During pendency of the writ petition, some of the writ
petitioners (proforma respondents herein) were selected from
supplementary list in place of empanelled candidates who were
medically unfit or did not report for medical exam/training etc.
6. After hearing the parties, High Court framed the following issue:
“24. The issue that arises is whether the Petitioners who
secured more than the UR candidates in the written test
and trade test can be considered against the UR vacancies?”
st
7. Stance of the 1 Appellant-RPF before High Court was that
though some of the respondents-writ petitioners belonging to
SC/ST category who availed relaxation of age and/or physical
measurements had secured higher marks in the written
examination than the cut-off in unreserved category relatable to
their respective trades, they could not be treated in unreserved
category as they had availed of such relaxations.
Page 5 of 19
8. In support of such plea, appellants referred to Standing Order
3
No.85 dt. 05.03.2009 . Para 14(f) runs as follows:-
“Candidates from SC, ST and OBC categories selected
purely on merit without availing any relaxation in age,
physical measurements and Qualifying Marks in written
test shall not be counted against vacancies reserved for
such categories.”
9. In reply, the respondents-writ petitioners contended the
recruitment of staff in ancillary services was governed by a
different standing order, namely Standing Order No.78 dt.
4
21.02.2008 , which permitted migration of reserved candidates
scoring higher in the merit test to unreserved category. Para
14(b) of the said Standing Order reads as follows:-
“Candidates from SC, ST and OBC categories who come into
the general merit list by securing higher marks shall be
selected against unreserved vacancies. If more than one
candidate has obtained the same mark, they should be
arranged in the order of their dates of birth. Those seniors
in age will be placed above those junior in age. In case the
dates of birth also happen to be the same they may be
placed alphabetically.”
10. Holding that the latter standing order was applicable, the High
Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed appointment of
respondents-writ petitioners to the vacant posts.
3
No. 2009-Sec(E)/RC-3/1, New Delhi.
4
No. 2008-Sec(E)/RC-3/18, New Delhi.
Page 6 of 19
11. Ms. Saumya Tandon, learned counsel for the appellants
contends the employment notification must be read in
5
conjunction with Revised Directive No.29 dated 06.12.2013
which provides that in partial modification of Standing Order
6
No. 78 and in supersession of earlier Directive No. 29 , the
Standing Order No. 85 applicable to Constables shall also be
applicable to recruitment in ancillary posts i.e. the present
recruitment process.
12. On the other hand, Mr. A. Mariarputham, learned senior
counsel submits that the Revised Directive No.29 does not
provide that Standing Order No.78 is wholly superseded by
Standing Order No.85 and Para 14(b) of the said standing order
would survive and permit the reserved candidates, though
availing concessions, to be selected against unreserved posts as
they scored higher marks than cut-off marks for such
unreserved posts. For better appreciation, Revised Directive
No.29 is set out as under:–
“GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF
RAILWAYS (RAILWAY BOARD)
No.2013/Sec (E)/RC-3/142 New Delhi,
dated 06.12.2013
DIRECTIVE-29 (REVISED)
5
No. 2013/Sec (E)/RC-3/142, New Delhi.
6
Dated 27.09.2013.
Page 7 of 19
Sub: Procedure regarding recruitment of Constable
(Ancillary) in RPF/RPSF.
Consequent upon placement of all posts of ancillary staff of
RPF/RPSF in PB1 with Grade Pay Rs.2000/- vide Ministry
of Railway's letter No. PC-VI/2008/1/5/8 dated
03.07.2013 (RBE No.62/2013) and in partial modification
of Directive No.24, issued vide letter No. 2008/Sec
(Spl.)/6/16, dt.09.04.2008 and Standing Order No. 78,
issued vide letter No. 2008-Sec(E)RC-3/18, dt. 21.02.2008
as far as applicable to the recruitment of Constable,
Ancillary staff viz. Constable (Water Carrier), Constable
(Safaiwala), Constable (Barber), Constable (Washerman),
Constable (Mali), Constable (Tailor) and Constable (Cobbler)
of RPF/RPSF and in supersession of Directive-29 dt.
27.09.2013 & its modification dt. 12.11.2013, DG/RPF
hereby issues the following Directive.
For the above said recruitment in RPF/RPSF, procedure
laid down in Standing Order-85, issued vide letter
No.2009/Sec (E)/RC-3/1 dated 05.03.2009, and its
modifications issued vide letter No.2009/Sec (E)/RC-311,
dated 21.01.2011, 11.02.2011 and 01.12.2011 for
recruitment of Constable, shall be applicable with following
changes.
1. Educational Qualification: Matriculation or equivalent from
a recognized Board/University. Educational certificate
other than State Board/Central Board should be
accompanied with Govt. of India notification declaring that
such qualification is equivalent to Matriculation /10th
Class pass for service under Central Govt or ITI.
2. TRADE TEST (50 MARKS) shall be conducted in place of
viva-voce: 3 (three) times the number of candidates who
qualify the written examination, PET and PMT will be put
through a Trade Test of 50 marks. The Trade Test is purely
qualifying in nature and Candidates will have to secure
minimum 50% marks to qualify the Trade Test. Marks
obtained in Trade Test will not be added to the written
examination marks for preparation of final selection of the
candidates. The candidate shall bring their own
tools/material required for their Trade Test. The trade test
for different trades may consist of:
BARBER: Handling of tools, Hair Cutting, Shaving, etc.
MALI: Plantations and making grafts, Maintenance of
plants, Knowledge of seeds and their sowing season,
Page 8 of 19
Knowledge and use of fertilizers and indigenous manures,
etc.
SAFAIWALA: Sweeping, dusting, mopping, cleaning of
toilets, Cleaning of Bathrooms, etc.
WASHER MAN: Manual and mechanical washing of clothes,
dry-cleaning ironing and maintenance of all types of
uniform, etc.
WATER CARRIER: Washing of vessels, Kneading of Atta for
making chapattis/ puns for 100 staff, Cutting of vegetables
etc., Cooking of Chapati & Rice for 100 staff, Cooking of
vegetable/Dal/Samber etc. for 100 staff, Cooking of
Meat/Fish/Egg/Kheer, Idali Badakhana etc. TAILOR:
Taking measurement and stitching of Winter and summer
uniform of the force personnel. Knowledge of different type
of materials i.e. fabrics/thread etc. used in trade work.
Capability to carry out minor repairs, trouble-shooting
Maintenance of sewing machine, and ability to recognize
tools/machines used in ·cutting, tailoring, and their correct
identification.
COBBLER: Knowledge of stitching & repairing of shoes,
ability to identify/recognize tools used in the trade. Ability
to identify and recognize different types of leathers and
material used in the trade, and ability to recognize
nails/threads used in sewing shoes. One should have
knowledge of leather sewing machine & ability to carry out
minor repairs.
3. Only one application shall be submitted for one or more
than one trade. However, preference should be given in the
application forms by the candidates as per their choice.
4. DG/RPF may relax any of the above instructions in Special
Cases on the recommendation of the concerned CSC.”
( emphasis supplied )
13. The Revised Directive No.29 unequivocally shows that in
partial modification of Standing Order No.78 the procedure
laid down in Standing Order No.85 dated 05.03.2009 for
recruitment of constables shall be applicable with certain
changes.
Page 9 of 19
14. It is argued that the Revised Directive does not wholly
supersede Standing Order No.78 and partially modifies the
said Order with reference to Standing Order No.85 applicable
for recruitment to the post of Constable and above. As such,
para 14(b) of the Standing Order No. 78 which permits
migration of reserved candidates to the general merit list
remains unaltered.
15. The words ‘partial modification’ used in the Revised Directive
must be contextually appreciated to mean that the Standing
Order No. 78 prescribing the recruitment process to post of
ancillary services shall remain unaltered to the extent it is not
in conflict with the procedure prescribed in Standing Order No.
85 applicable to recruitment of Constables.
16. Para 14(f) of the Standing Order No. 85 states only those
candidates in reserved category who have not availed
relaxation in age, physical measurements and qualifying
marks in written test may be appointed in unreserved category
and thereby bars the reserved candidates who have availed
such concession from migration to unreserved category. This
para runs counter to Para 14(b) of Standing Order No. 78
which permits such migration. A partial modification of the
Page 10 of 19
Standing Order No. 78 by Standing Order No. 85 would
naturally have an overriding effect and Para 14(f) of the latter
Standing Order will prevail over Para 14(b) of former Standing
Order, putting an embargo on migration of reserved candidates
who have availed relaxation of age and/or physical
measurements to fill up unreserved vacancies, even if they
have scored higher marks than the cut-off marks prescribed
for the unreserved seats.
17. Even otherwise it is relevant to note some of the respondents-
writ petitioners had failed to score marks above the cut-off
prescribed for the unreserved seats or had failed to qualify in
their respective trade tests. The High Court failed to appreciate
the aforesaid factual background and mechanically relied on
7
Jitendra Kumar Singh vs. State of UP & Ors. to direct the
respondents-writ petitioners to be appointed against
unreserved seats.
8
18. In Union of India & Ors. vs. Sajib Roy this Court held that
Jitendra Singh (supra) is inapplicable to cases where the
recruitment rules bar migration of reserved candidates availing
7
(2010) 3 SCC 119.
8
SLP (C) No. 21392-93 of 2019.
Page 11 of 19
relaxation in age/ fees to be appointed against unreserved
vacancies. The Court summarized the principles as follows:
“32. …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.”
19. In light of the aforesaid discussion, particularly the bar
envisaged in Standing Order No. 85 read with Revised Directive
No. 29, we are of the view the High Court erred in directing the
respondents-writ petitioners to be selected against the
unreserved posts. The impugned judgment and order is set
aside. Appeal is allowed.
20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
SLP (C) No.28469/2019
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant has assailed judgment and order dated
27.08.2019 in W.P. (C) No.10005/2018 passed by the Delhi
High Court.
Page 12 of 19
3. In response to Notification No. 45013/9/2009-Pers.I, dated
06.12.2017, issued by the 1st respondent - Union of India for
filling up posts of Assistant Commandant (Executive) in
Central Industrial Security Forces (CISF) through Limited
Department Competitive Examination, appellant applied as a
general category candidate. He was successful in the written
examination, physical efficiency test and medical eligibility test
nd
conducted by 2 respondent-UPSC. He appeared in the
personality test/interview but was not selected as the
minimum cut-off marks in general category was 364, while he
had scored 363. One of the seats in the general category was
filled by a Scheduled Tribe candidate, i.e., 4th respondent
herein, who had scored higher marks (366) than the last
selected candidate in general category (364).
4. Contending that the Scheduled Tribe candidate, i.e., 4th
respondent had not been selected on same standards as
applicable to general candidates as he had availed concessions
9
with regard to height, appellant approached the High Court,
praying that the selection list be quashed and he be selected
9
As per the notification dated 06.12.2017, the minimum height requirement was 165 cm for male
candidates belonging to the General and Scheduled Caste categories, and 162.5 cm for Scheduled
Tribe candidates. The 4th Respondent’s height was recorded as 163 cm.
Page 13 of 19
in the general category. In support of his prayer, he relied on
Office Memorandum No. 36011/1/98-Estt. (Res), dated
01.07.1998. Relevant provisions of the memorandum are set
out hereinbelow :–
“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 candidate 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 than
what is provided for general category candidate etc., the
SC/ST/OBC candidates are to be counted against reserved
vacancies. Such candidates would be deemed as
unavailable for consideration against unreserved
vacancies.” ( emphasis supplied )
5. It was further contended that the said memorandum was again
reiterated vide Office Memo No. 43011/4/2018-Estt. (Res),
dated 04.04.2018 :-
“2. As per instructions issued vide this Department’s OM
No.36012/2/96-Estt. (Res) dated 02.07.1997, in direct
recruitments to Central Government jobs and services the
reserve category candidates who are selected on the same
standard as applied to general candidates will not be
adjusted against reserved vacancies. As per instructions
issued vide DOP&T OM No.36011/1/98-Estt. (Res) dated
01.07.1998, only when a relaxed standard is applied in
selecting a reserved candidates, for example in the age
Page 14 of 19
limit, experience, qualification, permitted number of
chances in written examination, etc., such candidates will
be counted against reserved vacancies.
3. It has been brought to the notice of this Department by
the Hon’ble Parliamentary Committee on Welfare of OBCs
that these instructions are not being followed in some
cases in direct recruitments to Central Government jobs
and services. It is, therefore, reiterated that while making
Direct Recruitments, guidelines issued vide this
Department’s OM No.36012/2/96-Estt. (Res) dated
02.07.1997 and OM No.36011/1/98-Estt.(Res) dated
01.07.1998 may be kept in view by all concerned.”
nd
6. 2 respondent-UPSC opposed the prayer and in its counter
affidavit clarified that the office memoranda did not bar
reserved candidates who had been permitted to participate in
the selection process as per concessions in physical standards
i.e. height, weight, chest etc. prescribed for various categories,
nd
namely, men and women in general/SC and ST. 2
respondent clarified as follows :–
“These physical / medical standards as provided in the
Examination Rules are notified by the Government
(Ministry of Home Affairs) and each candidate declared
qualified in the written part of the Examination has to meet
with this requirement for qualifying the same. As such,
Physical Standard Tests / Physical Efficiency Tests &
Medical Standard Tests do not come under the purview of
the Commission. However, it is not out of place to point
out here that the physical standards (height and chest) of
woman candidates are lower than the male candidates for
different categories for the aforesaid Examination. But,
this cannot be considered that the woman candidates
would be availing the relaxed physical standards as
compared to the male candidates since this incorrect
assumption could lead to the situation that no woman
Page 15 of 19
candidate of general. category, especially, would be
selected as there is no reservation as such for woman
candidates in the government Service including the CISF.
Furthermore, there will not be any chance for any female
candidate to qualify an Examination on her own merit
despite the fact that she has not availed any relaxation in
terms of age, cut-off marks etc. The similar situation is
also applicable to the ST candidates qualifying the
Examination on their own merit (taking into account age,
cut off marks etc.) with lower physical standards fixed for
them. The case of Shri Sitlhou, the S.T. candidate declared
qualified against General category, falls in the above
category as he has qualified the CISF Examination on his
own merit in terms of age and cut-off marks fixed for the
aforesaid CISF Examination. Moreover, different
parameters of Physical Standards relating to height /
weight / chest etc. for male/ female and for different
categories of candidates are prescribed keeping in view
gender / race of the candidates by the Ministry of Home
Affairs.” ( emphasis supplied )
7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid stance, the High Court
held the office memo dated 01.07.1998 did not apply to relaxed
physical standards like height, weight etc., which would vary
depending on gender, geographical location and so on, and
dismissed the writ petition. We are in wholesome agreement
with such view expressed by the High Court.
8. We are fortified to come to such conclusion as office memo
dated 01.07.1998 does not expressly state relaxed concessions
in physical measurements availed by a reserved candidate
would disentitle the candidate from being considered for
Page 16 of 19
appointment under general category if he has scored higher
than the cut-off marks in such category.
9. It may not be out of place to note that the present office
memorandum does not expressly refer to relaxation in physical
standards unlike Clause 14(f) of the Standing Order No.85
which is applicable to recruitment of Railway Protection Force,
dealt by us in Railway Protection Force & Ors. v. Prem Chand
10
Kumar & Ors.
11
10. In Deepa E.V. v. Union of India & Ors., Niravkumar Dilipbhai
12
and
Makwana v. Gujarat Public Service Commission & Ors.
13
Government (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors.
this Court did not permit migration in light of the embargo in
self-same office memorandum with regard to relaxation of
upper age limit, unlike relaxation in physical standards
applicable to the present case. Thus, the said cases are clearly
distinguishable and do not come to the aid of the appellant.
11. Learned counsel for appellant heavily relies on the expression
‘extended zone of consideration larger than what is provided
10
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20866/2019.
11
(2017) 12 SCC 680.
12
(2019) 7 SCC 383.
13
(2019) 10 SCC 120.
Page 17 of 19
for general category candidates etc.’ to contend concessions in
physical standards like height, weight etc. are also included.
High Court rebutted the said argument, holding as such :–
“20. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that there are
physical standards, like height, weight etc. which are also
known as “Enlistment Standards" and there are other
markers of eligibility, which would include age and
educational qualifications. This is also apparent from the
OM dated 1st July 1998, cited by learned counsel for the
Petitioner, which, in the context of “relaxed standards"
illustratively cites "age limit, experience, qualification,
permitted number of chances in written examination,
extended zone of consideration larger than what is
provided for General Category candidates, etc.". The word
“etc." has to be read ejusdem generis. It takes colour from
the preceding words which refer to age limit, experience,
·and qualifications. It does not contemplate physical
standards which would vary depending on gender,
geographical location, and so on.” ( emphasis supplied )
12. The interpretation given by the High Court to the office
memorandum is in sync with the stance taken by the 1st
respondent-Union of India that the said office memorandum
does not bar the migration of reserved candidates availing
relaxation in physical standards, which depends on the
gender/ethnic background of the candidate concerned.
13. Given this situation, we find no reason to differ from the view
nd
expressed by the recruiting authority i.e., 2 respondent-
UPSC as well as 1st Respondent-Union of India, with regard to
Page 18 of 19
the scope and ambit of the embargo in the office memorandum,
as upheld by the High Court.
14. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the
judgement and order of the High Court does not call for
interference. Appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if
any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………………………., J
( SURYA KANT )
………………………………………, J
( JOYMALYA BAGCHI )
New Delhi,
September 09, 2025.
Page 19 of 19
2025 INSC 1083
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. /2025
(@ SLP (C) No.20866/2019)
RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
PREM CHAND KUMAR & ORS. RESPONDENT(S)
With
CIVIL APPEAL NO. /2025
(@ SLP (C) No.28469/2019)
J U D G M E N T
Joymalya Bagchi, J.
SLP (C) No. 20866/2019
1. Leave granted.
1
2. Appellants have assailed judgement and order dated
29.03.2019 whereby the High Court directed the respondents-
writ petitioners, who had applied in reserved category and
availed relaxation in age and/or physical measurements to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NITIN TALREJA
Date: 2025.09.09
16:29:01 IST
Reason:
1
In Writ Petition (C) No. 1350 of 2017.
Page 1 of 19
participate in the recruitment process and had obtained marks
higher than the last selected candidate in the unreserved
category, to be appointed in the unreserved category.
3. Shorn of details, factual matrix giving rise to the appeal is as
follows :–
3.1 On 06.12.2013, Employment Notice No. 1/2013 was
nd
issued by 2 Appellant-Railway Board inviting
applications for filling up 659 posts in seven different
categories, namely, Constable (Water Carrier), Constable
(Safaiwala), Constable (Washerman), Constable (Barber),
Constable (Mali), Constable (Tailor) and Constable
(Cobbler) in the ancillary services of the Railway Protection
Force, including the Railway Protection Special Force.
Subsequently, the number of vacancies advertised were
enhanced to 763.
3.2 Clause 4(c) of the Employment Notification provided that
the candidate must be above 18 years and not more than
25 years to be eligible to apply.
Page 2 of 19
3.3 Upper age relaxation up to 5 years and 3 years was given
2
for SC/ST and OBC candidates respectively . Clause
4(d)(v) provided as follows:-
“No age relaxation is allowed to SC/ST/OBC candidates
applying against unreserved vacancies.”
3.4 Clause 4(e) prescribed the physical measurements of an
eligible candidate with regard to height and chest
(expanded and unexpanded) for male and female
candidates separately. Concessions with regard to physical
measurements for SC/ST and OBC candidates were also
prescribed.
3.5 Clause 5 of the Employment Notification laid down the
selection process stating eligible candidates in all
categories shall be subjected to a written examination,
Physical Efficiency Test (PET), Physical Measurement Test
(PMT) and trade test for recruitment.
3.6 In the written examination, cut-off for general candidates
was 35 percent and cut-off for SC/ST candidates was 30
percent. If successful in the written examination, the
candidate would be called for PET comprising 1600/800
2
Clause 4(d) of the Employment Notice No. 1/2013.
Page 3 of 19
metres run, high jump and long jump. Though no marks
were to be awarded, the candidate must qualify in all the
categories.
3.7 Candidates who succeeded in the written examination,
PET and PMT were to appear in a trade test specific to each
category where such candidate was to secure at least 50
percent marks. The number of candidates who were to be
called for the trade test was not to exceed three times the
prescribed vacancy.
3.8 Certain candidates in the State of Assam filed WP (C) No.
2120/2016 ( Japhed Dhan and others vs. Union of India )
claiming that they had been wrongly disqualified in the
PMT and PET. Consequent upon an interim order of the
Guwahati High Court dated 01.04.2016, 74 vacancies of
the North Frontier Railway in Employment Notice
No.1/2013 were excluded such that the vacancies that
could be filled up was brought down to 689.
3.9 Pursuant to the aforesaid selection process 400 candidates
were empanelled in different categories. Respondents-writ
petitioners were not empanelled as either they had not
qualified trade test for their respective trade(s) (that is, did
Page 4 of 19
not score minimum 50 percent in trade test) or had not
qualified the cut-off for their respective trade(s) in their
reserved category or there was no vacancy in their trade.
4. As a number of vacancies in various categories remained
unfilled, respondents-writ petitioners approached the High
Court praying for a mandamus to appoint them against the
unfilled posts.
5. During pendency of the writ petition, some of the writ
petitioners (proforma respondents herein) were selected from
supplementary list in place of empanelled candidates who were
medically unfit or did not report for medical exam/training etc.
6. After hearing the parties, High Court framed the following issue:
“24. The issue that arises is whether the Petitioners who
secured more than the UR candidates in the written test
and trade test can be considered against the UR vacancies?”
st
7. Stance of the 1 Appellant-RPF before High Court was that
though some of the respondents-writ petitioners belonging to
SC/ST category who availed relaxation of age and/or physical
measurements had secured higher marks in the written
examination than the cut-off in unreserved category relatable to
their respective trades, they could not be treated in unreserved
category as they had availed of such relaxations.
Page 5 of 19
8. In support of such plea, appellants referred to Standing Order
3
No.85 dt. 05.03.2009 . Para 14(f) runs as follows:-
“Candidates from SC, ST and OBC categories selected
purely on merit without availing any relaxation in age,
physical measurements and Qualifying Marks in written
test shall not be counted against vacancies reserved for
such categories.”
9. In reply, the respondents-writ petitioners contended the
recruitment of staff in ancillary services was governed by a
different standing order, namely Standing Order No.78 dt.
4
21.02.2008 , which permitted migration of reserved candidates
scoring higher in the merit test to unreserved category. Para
14(b) of the said Standing Order reads as follows:-
“Candidates from SC, ST and OBC categories who come into
the general merit list by securing higher marks shall be
selected against unreserved vacancies. If more than one
candidate has obtained the same mark, they should be
arranged in the order of their dates of birth. Those seniors
in age will be placed above those junior in age. In case the
dates of birth also happen to be the same they may be
placed alphabetically.”
10. Holding that the latter standing order was applicable, the High
Court allowed the Writ Petition and directed appointment of
respondents-writ petitioners to the vacant posts.
3
No. 2009-Sec(E)/RC-3/1, New Delhi.
4
No. 2008-Sec(E)/RC-3/18, New Delhi.
Page 6 of 19
11. Ms. Saumya Tandon, learned counsel for the appellants
contends the employment notification must be read in
5
conjunction with Revised Directive No.29 dated 06.12.2013
which provides that in partial modification of Standing Order
6
No. 78 and in supersession of earlier Directive No. 29 , the
Standing Order No. 85 applicable to Constables shall also be
applicable to recruitment in ancillary posts i.e. the present
recruitment process.
12. On the other hand, Mr. A. Mariarputham, learned senior
counsel submits that the Revised Directive No.29 does not
provide that Standing Order No.78 is wholly superseded by
Standing Order No.85 and Para 14(b) of the said standing order
would survive and permit the reserved candidates, though
availing concessions, to be selected against unreserved posts as
they scored higher marks than cut-off marks for such
unreserved posts. For better appreciation, Revised Directive
No.29 is set out as under:–
“GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF
RAILWAYS (RAILWAY BOARD)
No.2013/Sec (E)/RC-3/142 New Delhi,
dated 06.12.2013
DIRECTIVE-29 (REVISED)
5
No. 2013/Sec (E)/RC-3/142, New Delhi.
6
Dated 27.09.2013.
Page 7 of 19
Sub: Procedure regarding recruitment of Constable
(Ancillary) in RPF/RPSF.
Consequent upon placement of all posts of ancillary staff of
RPF/RPSF in PB1 with Grade Pay Rs.2000/- vide Ministry
of Railway's letter No. PC-VI/2008/1/5/8 dated
03.07.2013 (RBE No.62/2013) and in partial modification
of Directive No.24, issued vide letter No. 2008/Sec
(Spl.)/6/16, dt.09.04.2008 and Standing Order No. 78,
issued vide letter No. 2008-Sec(E)RC-3/18, dt. 21.02.2008
as far as applicable to the recruitment of Constable,
Ancillary staff viz. Constable (Water Carrier), Constable
(Safaiwala), Constable (Barber), Constable (Washerman),
Constable (Mali), Constable (Tailor) and Constable (Cobbler)
of RPF/RPSF and in supersession of Directive-29 dt.
27.09.2013 & its modification dt. 12.11.2013, DG/RPF
hereby issues the following Directive.
For the above said recruitment in RPF/RPSF, procedure
laid down in Standing Order-85, issued vide letter
No.2009/Sec (E)/RC-3/1 dated 05.03.2009, and its
modifications issued vide letter No.2009/Sec (E)/RC-311,
dated 21.01.2011, 11.02.2011 and 01.12.2011 for
recruitment of Constable, shall be applicable with following
changes.
1. Educational Qualification: Matriculation or equivalent from
a recognized Board/University. Educational certificate
other than State Board/Central Board should be
accompanied with Govt. of India notification declaring that
such qualification is equivalent to Matriculation /10th
Class pass for service under Central Govt or ITI.
2. TRADE TEST (50 MARKS) shall be conducted in place of
viva-voce: 3 (three) times the number of candidates who
qualify the written examination, PET and PMT will be put
through a Trade Test of 50 marks. The Trade Test is purely
qualifying in nature and Candidates will have to secure
minimum 50% marks to qualify the Trade Test. Marks
obtained in Trade Test will not be added to the written
examination marks for preparation of final selection of the
candidates. The candidate shall bring their own
tools/material required for their Trade Test. The trade test
for different trades may consist of:
BARBER: Handling of tools, Hair Cutting, Shaving, etc.
MALI: Plantations and making grafts, Maintenance of
plants, Knowledge of seeds and their sowing season,
Page 8 of 19
Knowledge and use of fertilizers and indigenous manures,
etc.
SAFAIWALA: Sweeping, dusting, mopping, cleaning of
toilets, Cleaning of Bathrooms, etc.
WASHER MAN: Manual and mechanical washing of clothes,
dry-cleaning ironing and maintenance of all types of
uniform, etc.
WATER CARRIER: Washing of vessels, Kneading of Atta for
making chapattis/ puns for 100 staff, Cutting of vegetables
etc., Cooking of Chapati & Rice for 100 staff, Cooking of
vegetable/Dal/Samber etc. for 100 staff, Cooking of
Meat/Fish/Egg/Kheer, Idali Badakhana etc. TAILOR:
Taking measurement and stitching of Winter and summer
uniform of the force personnel. Knowledge of different type
of materials i.e. fabrics/thread etc. used in trade work.
Capability to carry out minor repairs, trouble-shooting
Maintenance of sewing machine, and ability to recognize
tools/machines used in ·cutting, tailoring, and their correct
identification.
COBBLER: Knowledge of stitching & repairing of shoes,
ability to identify/recognize tools used in the trade. Ability
to identify and recognize different types of leathers and
material used in the trade, and ability to recognize
nails/threads used in sewing shoes. One should have
knowledge of leather sewing machine & ability to carry out
minor repairs.
3. Only one application shall be submitted for one or more
than one trade. However, preference should be given in the
application forms by the candidates as per their choice.
4. DG/RPF may relax any of the above instructions in Special
Cases on the recommendation of the concerned CSC.”
( emphasis supplied )
13. The Revised Directive No.29 unequivocally shows that in
partial modification of Standing Order No.78 the procedure
laid down in Standing Order No.85 dated 05.03.2009 for
recruitment of constables shall be applicable with certain
changes.
Page 9 of 19
14. It is argued that the Revised Directive does not wholly
supersede Standing Order No.78 and partially modifies the
said Order with reference to Standing Order No.85 applicable
for recruitment to the post of Constable and above. As such,
para 14(b) of the Standing Order No. 78 which permits
migration of reserved candidates to the general merit list
remains unaltered.
15. The words ‘partial modification’ used in the Revised Directive
must be contextually appreciated to mean that the Standing
Order No. 78 prescribing the recruitment process to post of
ancillary services shall remain unaltered to the extent it is not
in conflict with the procedure prescribed in Standing Order No.
85 applicable to recruitment of Constables.
16. Para 14(f) of the Standing Order No. 85 states only those
candidates in reserved category who have not availed
relaxation in age, physical measurements and qualifying
marks in written test may be appointed in unreserved category
and thereby bars the reserved candidates who have availed
such concession from migration to unreserved category. This
para runs counter to Para 14(b) of Standing Order No. 78
which permits such migration. A partial modification of the
Page 10 of 19
Standing Order No. 78 by Standing Order No. 85 would
naturally have an overriding effect and Para 14(f) of the latter
Standing Order will prevail over Para 14(b) of former Standing
Order, putting an embargo on migration of reserved candidates
who have availed relaxation of age and/or physical
measurements to fill up unreserved vacancies, even if they
have scored higher marks than the cut-off marks prescribed
for the unreserved seats.
17. Even otherwise it is relevant to note some of the respondents-
writ petitioners had failed to score marks above the cut-off
prescribed for the unreserved seats or had failed to qualify in
their respective trade tests. The High Court failed to appreciate
the aforesaid factual background and mechanically relied on
7
Jitendra Kumar Singh vs. State of UP & Ors. to direct the
respondents-writ petitioners to be appointed against
unreserved seats.
8
18. In Union of India & Ors. vs. Sajib Roy this Court held that
Jitendra Singh (supra) is inapplicable to cases where the
recruitment rules bar migration of reserved candidates availing
7
(2010) 3 SCC 119.
8
SLP (C) No. 21392-93 of 2019.
Page 11 of 19
relaxation in age/ fees to be appointed against unreserved
vacancies. The Court summarized the principles as follows:
“32. …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.”
19. In light of the aforesaid discussion, particularly the bar
envisaged in Standing Order No. 85 read with Revised Directive
No. 29, we are of the view the High Court erred in directing the
respondents-writ petitioners to be selected against the
unreserved posts. The impugned judgment and order is set
aside. Appeal is allowed.
20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
SLP (C) No.28469/2019
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant has assailed judgment and order dated
27.08.2019 in W.P. (C) No.10005/2018 passed by the Delhi
High Court.
Page 12 of 19
3. In response to Notification No. 45013/9/2009-Pers.I, dated
06.12.2017, issued by the 1st respondent - Union of India for
filling up posts of Assistant Commandant (Executive) in
Central Industrial Security Forces (CISF) through Limited
Department Competitive Examination, appellant applied as a
general category candidate. He was successful in the written
examination, physical efficiency test and medical eligibility test
nd
conducted by 2 respondent-UPSC. He appeared in the
personality test/interview but was not selected as the
minimum cut-off marks in general category was 364, while he
had scored 363. One of the seats in the general category was
filled by a Scheduled Tribe candidate, i.e., 4th respondent
herein, who had scored higher marks (366) than the last
selected candidate in general category (364).
4. Contending that the Scheduled Tribe candidate, i.e., 4th
respondent had not been selected on same standards as
applicable to general candidates as he had availed concessions
9
with regard to height, appellant approached the High Court,
praying that the selection list be quashed and he be selected
9
As per the notification dated 06.12.2017, the minimum height requirement was 165 cm for male
candidates belonging to the General and Scheduled Caste categories, and 162.5 cm for Scheduled
Tribe candidates. The 4th Respondent’s height was recorded as 163 cm.
Page 13 of 19
in the general category. In support of his prayer, he relied on
Office Memorandum No. 36011/1/98-Estt. (Res), dated
01.07.1998. Relevant provisions of the memorandum are set
out hereinbelow :–
“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 candidate 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 than
what is provided for general category candidate etc., the
SC/ST/OBC candidates are to be counted against reserved
vacancies. Such candidates would be deemed as
unavailable for consideration against unreserved
vacancies.” ( emphasis supplied )
5. It was further contended that the said memorandum was again
reiterated vide Office Memo No. 43011/4/2018-Estt. (Res),
dated 04.04.2018 :-
“2. As per instructions issued vide this Department’s OM
No.36012/2/96-Estt. (Res) dated 02.07.1997, in direct
recruitments to Central Government jobs and services the
reserve category candidates who are selected on the same
standard as applied to general candidates will not be
adjusted against reserved vacancies. As per instructions
issued vide DOP&T OM No.36011/1/98-Estt. (Res) dated
01.07.1998, only when a relaxed standard is applied in
selecting a reserved candidates, for example in the age
Page 14 of 19
limit, experience, qualification, permitted number of
chances in written examination, etc., such candidates will
be counted against reserved vacancies.
3. It has been brought to the notice of this Department by
the Hon’ble Parliamentary Committee on Welfare of OBCs
that these instructions are not being followed in some
cases in direct recruitments to Central Government jobs
and services. It is, therefore, reiterated that while making
Direct Recruitments, guidelines issued vide this
Department’s OM No.36012/2/96-Estt. (Res) dated
02.07.1997 and OM No.36011/1/98-Estt.(Res) dated
01.07.1998 may be kept in view by all concerned.”
nd
6. 2 respondent-UPSC opposed the prayer and in its counter
affidavit clarified that the office memoranda did not bar
reserved candidates who had been permitted to participate in
the selection process as per concessions in physical standards
i.e. height, weight, chest etc. prescribed for various categories,
nd
namely, men and women in general/SC and ST. 2
respondent clarified as follows :–
“These physical / medical standards as provided in the
Examination Rules are notified by the Government
(Ministry of Home Affairs) and each candidate declared
qualified in the written part of the Examination has to meet
with this requirement for qualifying the same. As such,
Physical Standard Tests / Physical Efficiency Tests &
Medical Standard Tests do not come under the purview of
the Commission. However, it is not out of place to point
out here that the physical standards (height and chest) of
woman candidates are lower than the male candidates for
different categories for the aforesaid Examination. But,
this cannot be considered that the woman candidates
would be availing the relaxed physical standards as
compared to the male candidates since this incorrect
assumption could lead to the situation that no woman
Page 15 of 19
candidate of general. category, especially, would be
selected as there is no reservation as such for woman
candidates in the government Service including the CISF.
Furthermore, there will not be any chance for any female
candidate to qualify an Examination on her own merit
despite the fact that she has not availed any relaxation in
terms of age, cut-off marks etc. The similar situation is
also applicable to the ST candidates qualifying the
Examination on their own merit (taking into account age,
cut off marks etc.) with lower physical standards fixed for
them. The case of Shri Sitlhou, the S.T. candidate declared
qualified against General category, falls in the above
category as he has qualified the CISF Examination on his
own merit in terms of age and cut-off marks fixed for the
aforesaid CISF Examination. Moreover, different
parameters of Physical Standards relating to height /
weight / chest etc. for male/ female and for different
categories of candidates are prescribed keeping in view
gender / race of the candidates by the Ministry of Home
Affairs.” ( emphasis supplied )
7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid stance, the High Court
held the office memo dated 01.07.1998 did not apply to relaxed
physical standards like height, weight etc., which would vary
depending on gender, geographical location and so on, and
dismissed the writ petition. We are in wholesome agreement
with such view expressed by the High Court.
8. We are fortified to come to such conclusion as office memo
dated 01.07.1998 does not expressly state relaxed concessions
in physical measurements availed by a reserved candidate
would disentitle the candidate from being considered for
Page 16 of 19
appointment under general category if he has scored higher
than the cut-off marks in such category.
9. It may not be out of place to note that the present office
memorandum does not expressly refer to relaxation in physical
standards unlike Clause 14(f) of the Standing Order No.85
which is applicable to recruitment of Railway Protection Force,
dealt by us in Railway Protection Force & Ors. v. Prem Chand
10
Kumar & Ors.
11
10. In Deepa E.V. v. Union of India & Ors., Niravkumar Dilipbhai
12
and
Makwana v. Gujarat Public Service Commission & Ors.
13
Government (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors.
this Court did not permit migration in light of the embargo in
self-same office memorandum with regard to relaxation of
upper age limit, unlike relaxation in physical standards
applicable to the present case. Thus, the said cases are clearly
distinguishable and do not come to the aid of the appellant.
11. Learned counsel for appellant heavily relies on the expression
‘extended zone of consideration larger than what is provided
10
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20866/2019.
11
(2017) 12 SCC 680.
12
(2019) 7 SCC 383.
13
(2019) 10 SCC 120.
Page 17 of 19
for general category candidates etc.’ to contend concessions in
physical standards like height, weight etc. are also included.
High Court rebutted the said argument, holding as such :–
“20. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that there are
physical standards, like height, weight etc. which are also
known as “Enlistment Standards" and there are other
markers of eligibility, which would include age and
educational qualifications. This is also apparent from the
OM dated 1st July 1998, cited by learned counsel for the
Petitioner, which, in the context of “relaxed standards"
illustratively cites "age limit, experience, qualification,
permitted number of chances in written examination,
extended zone of consideration larger than what is
provided for General Category candidates, etc.". The word
“etc." has to be read ejusdem generis. It takes colour from
the preceding words which refer to age limit, experience,
·and qualifications. It does not contemplate physical
standards which would vary depending on gender,
geographical location, and so on.” ( emphasis supplied )
12. The interpretation given by the High Court to the office
memorandum is in sync with the stance taken by the 1st
respondent-Union of India that the said office memorandum
does not bar the migration of reserved candidates availing
relaxation in physical standards, which depends on the
gender/ethnic background of the candidate concerned.
13. Given this situation, we find no reason to differ from the view
nd
expressed by the recruiting authority i.e., 2 respondent-
UPSC as well as 1st Respondent-Union of India, with regard to
Page 18 of 19
the scope and ambit of the embargo in the office memorandum,
as upheld by the High Court.
14. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the
judgement and order of the High Court does not call for
interference. Appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if
any, shall stand disposed of.
………………………………………., J
( SURYA KANT )
………………………………………, J
( JOYMALYA BAGCHI )
New Delhi,
September 09, 2025.
Page 19 of 19