Airport Authority Of India vs. Sham Krishna B

2026 INSC 69
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 10686 of 2020)


AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF
INDIA & ORS. …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS
SHAM KRISHNA B & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
(Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 12937 of 2021)

J U D G M E N T
SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals arising out of the final judgment and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
rashmi dhyani pant
Date: 2026.01.16
16:57:51 IST
Reason:
order dated 19.02.2020 passed by the Division Bench of the
SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 & Anr. Page 1 of 28


Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Writ Appeal
bearing W.A. No. 1581 of 2018 ( hereinafter “the Impugned
Judgment ”). SLP(C) No. 10686 of 2020 has been preferred by
the Airport Authority of India ( hereinafter “the Appellant
Authority” ), and SLP(C) No. 12937 of 2021 is filed by Krishna
Chandran and another who had been impleaded as an additional
Respondent in W.A. No. 1581 of 2018.
3. The Impugned Judgment directed, inter alia , that Sham
Krishna ( hereinafter “the first Respondent”), who is the Writ
Petitioner, be appointed to a vacancy left vacant pursuant to the
Learned Single Judge’s orders in Writ Petition No. 35998 of
2016. The Division Bench further directed the Appellant
Authority to publish rank lists immediately after selection and to
ensure that roster points are filled in accordance with the model
roster in the Office Memorandum issued by the Department of
Personnel and Training dated 02.07.1997 ( hereinafter “ 1997
DoPT Office Memorandum ”). With respect to the impleaded
candidate, the Court denied any relief, noting that he did not
challenge the selection or denial of his appointment in a timely
manner.
4. In the year 2013, the Appellant Authority issued
Advertisement No. 01/SR/2013 inviting applications for
appointment to the post of Junior Assistant (Fire Service) in the
SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 & Anr. Page 2 of 28


scale of pay of Rs. 12,500 - 28,500. The total number of posts
notified was 244 +1, out of which 122 posts were earmarked as
unreserved, 78 for Other Backward Classes ( hereinafter
“ OBC ”), 22 for Scheduled Castes ( hereinafter “ SC ”) and 22 +1
for Scheduled Tribes ( hereinafter “ ST ”), with +1 being a carried
forward vacancy.
5. The notification prescribed the following qualifications: (i)
Pass in Class X and a regular three-year Diploma in Mechanical,
Automobile or Fire Engineering with not less than 50% marks;
or (ii) Pass in Class XII (regular study) with not less than 50%
marks together with one of the following licences: (a) a valid
heavy vehicle licence; or (b) a valid medium vehicle licence
issued at least one year before 30.04.2013; or (c) a valid light
motor vehicle licence issued at least two years before 30.04.2013.
6. The recruitment received 12,891 applications, of which
7,278 candidates were found eligible to appear for the written
examination. The written test prescribed qualifying marks of 50
out of 100 for general category candidates and 40 out of 100 for
SC/ST candidates, and 478 candidates qualified in the written
examination. All 478 candidates were called for the subsequent
stages of selection, namely the physical measurement test,
driving test, physical endurance test and interview. Upon
completion of the entire selection process, 185 candidates
SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 & Anr. Page 3 of 28


remained qualified, out of whom 158 candidates were initially
selected, and the remaining 27 candidates were placed on the
panel.
7. The first Respondent, who is the Writ Petitioner, had
applied for appointment to the post of Junior Assistant (Fire
Service) and participated in all stages of the selection process. He
qualified at each stage but was not included in the final list of
selected candidates.
8. As the select list was not published on the official website
of the Appellant Authority, the first Respondent submitted an
application dated 22.06.2016 under the Right to Information Act,
2005 ( hereinafter “ 2005 Act ”).
9. In response, he was furnished with the select list along with
mark details by a letter dated 18.07.2016. The list so furnished
disclosed that 158 candidates had been selected.
10. On noticing that appointments had been made only to 158
candidates against 245 notified vacancies, the first Respondent
submitted a further application dated 23.07.2016 under the 2005
Act seeking the final list of selected candidates with reservation
points, as well as the list of candidates excluded from selection
along with their marks. By reply dated 08.08.2016, the Appellant
SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 & Anr. Page 4 of 28


Authority furnished separate lists of unreserved candidates,
reserved category candidates, and candidates not selected.
11. The information so furnished revealed that 122 candidates
were selected under the unreserved category, while only 10
candidates were selected under the Other Backward Classes
category, 22 under the Scheduled Caste category and 4 under the
Scheduled Tribe category. The category-wise position of
advertised vacancies and appointments made stood as follows:

12. The first Respondent was placed at serial number ten in the
list of candidates not selected under the unreserved category. His
aggregate score was 128.08 marks out of 225, comprising 50
marks in the written examination, 18.08 marks in the interview
and 60 marks in the physical endurance test, with his merit
position being 132.
SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 & Anr. Page 5 of 28


13. Aggrieved by the merit list, his non-selection and inclusion
of reserved category candidates under the unreserved category,
the first Respondent filed Writ Petition (C) No. 35998 of 2016 in
the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam (hereinafter
“ High Court”) in late 2016, challenging the selection.
14. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 31.01.2018
allowed the Writ Petition. He found that the appointments were
vitiated because only 158 candidates had been appointed against
245 notified posts, and the reservation policy had not been
correctly applied. Consequently, he directed the Appellant
Authority to prepare and publish the rank list in accordance with
the recruitment rules and to re-arrange candidates in conformity
with the model roster contained in the 1997 DoPT Office
Memorandum, after which appointments were to be made to the
remaining notified posts.
15. The Appellant Authority challenged the Single Judge’s
order in Writ Appeal No. 1581 of 2018. By its Impugned
Judgment dated 19.02.2020, the Division Bench upheld the
Single Judge’s core findings that the appointments had been
erroneously made and that the roster had not been properly
applied. The Division Bench, however, modified the relief
granted by the Single Judge insofar as it declined to disturb the
entire selection exercise where no other appointee had challenged
SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 & Anr. Page 6 of 28


his or her appointment. The Division Bench directed that the first
Respondent be appointed to the vacancy that had been kept
vacant by the Single Judge and ordered the Appellant Authority
to publish rank lists forthwith and to ensure that future roster
points are filled in accordance with the 1997 DoPT Office
Memorandum. The Division Bench further made it clear that the
persons impleaded as additional Respondents in the Writ Appeal,
having not challenged the selection or the denial of their
appointment at the appropriate time, were not entitled to any
relief.
16. Aggrieved by the Division Bench’s decision, the Appellant
Authority filed Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10686 of 2020
before this Court. The impleaded candidate who was refused
relief by the Division Bench filed Special Leave Petition (C) No.
12937 of 2021. Both petitions challenge the impugned order
dated 19.02.2020 passed by Division Bench of the High Court in
Writ Appeal No. 1581 of 2018 on different aspects.
17. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Learned Additional Solicitor
General, appearing for the Appellants, submitted that the appeals
call for interference and that the Impugned Judgment rests on a
misconstruction of the manner in which select list was prepared
and the legal effect of appointments made on own merit.
SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 & Anr. Page 7 of 28


18. Learned Additional Solicitor General has vehemently
argued before this Court that it is a settled proposition of law that
in case a reserve category candidate finds place in the merit list
prepared for the General Category candidates on the basis of his
own merit, he has to be treated as a General Category candidate
and has to be adjusted against the posts meant for General
Category candidate and, therefore, the learned Single Judge as
well as the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court have erred
in law and in facts by allowing the writ petition and directing the
appointment of Respondent No. 1.
19. It was further submitted that a reservation register or roster
is an administrative, post-based instrument maintained to record
cadre composition and to identify points for future recruitment.
The roster monitors representation over time, and it does not
operate as a parallel selection mechanism to displace candidates
who legitimately secure an unreserved place on their own merits.
20. That the DoPT scheme, as implemented in the
memorandum dated 23.01.2014, provides a simplified format for
maintaining the reservation register, and the Authority has
followed that format. The Authority’s maintenance of the
reservation register in the prescribed format and its method of
preparing UR/OM lists conform to the administrative
instructions issued on the subject.
SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 & Anr. Page 8 of 28


21. Learned Additional Solicitor General has vehemently
argued before this Court that the petition was filed after the entire
process was over and it should have been dismissed on the
ground of delay and latches alone. Learned ASG has further
contended that the process of selection was conducted in
accordance with the recruitment rules and after following the
reservation roster and by no stretch of imagination, the persons
who have secured more or equal marks than the general category
candidates are required to be placed in the merit list prepared for
reserved category candidates. She has stated that the law on the
point has been crystalised by this Court and it is a settled
proposition of law that a candidate belonging to reserved
category if he secures more or equal marks like a general
candidate, he has to be included in the general category list and
she has prayed for quashment of the orders passed by learned
Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the Kerala High
Court and that the appeals arising out of SLP(C) No. 10686 of
2020 be allowed and the other appeal arising out of SLP(C) No.
12937 of 2021 be dismissed.
22. Learned counsel for the Respondent has stated before this
Court that the writ petition was certainly not at all barred by delay
and latches and the writ petition was filed with quite promptitude
after obtaining the relevant documents. He has vehemently
argued before this Court that the recruitment rules have not been
SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 & Anr. Page 9 of 28


applied properly which has resulted in non-selection of the
Respondent No. 1 and the exercise on the part of the Respondents
by including all reserved category candidates in the list prepared
for general category candidates is void and is opposed to law.
Learned counsel for Respondent No.1 has placed reliance upon
the judgment delivered in the case of Mathew David v. State of
Kerala & Ors., (2020) 14 SCC 577, on the ground of delay and
latches and his contention is that the writ petition could not have
been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches as argued by
learned ASG. Learned counsel has vehemently argued before
this Court that the select list prepared by the Respondent was in
contravention with the office memorandum issued by the
Department of Personnel and Training pursuant to the judgment
delivered in the case of R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. v. State of
Punjab & Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 745. He has stated that the
Appellant has not followed the roster prepared by the Department
and by no stretch of imagination, the vacancy belonging to
unreserved category candidates could have been filled by a
person belonging to reserve category candidates.
23. Learned counsel submits that as per Paragraph 11 of the
1997 DoPT Office Memorandum, a reserved-category candidate
who obtains appointment on merit must be shown against an
unreserved point and not against a reserved point. This must not
mean, however, that if a reserved post is available and a reserved
SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 & Anr. Page 10 of 28


candidate is next to be appointed based on his rank, the reserved
candidate is to be overlooked and another candidate belonging to
the reserved category lower in rank is to be appointed.
24. Learned counsel for the Respondent has vehemently
argued before this Court that by applying the roster, all 122 posts
advertised for unreserved category candidates should have been
filled only and exclusively by unreserved category candidates
and the vacancies advertised for OBC/SC/ST candidates should
have been filled only by the candidates belonging to OBC/SC/ST
categories. He has further argued that a large number of
OBC/SC/ST vacancies are available in the Department and the
vacancies advertised for reserve category candidates were not
filled under the examination in question and, therefore, there was
no justification in shifting the reserve category candidates
towards the vacancies meant for the general category candidates.
25. On these submissions, learned counsel for the first
Respondent prayed that the appeal be dismissed and the
Impugned Judgment of the High Court be upheld.
26. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and
perused the record.
27. The facts of the case reveal that total 245 posts were
advertised out of which 122 posts were for unreserved category
SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 & Anr. Page 11 of 28


candidates, 78 posts for OBC candidates, 22 posts for Scheduled
Caste category and 23 posts were reserved for Scheduled Tribe
candidates. After the selection process was over, 122 posts were
filled by unreserved candidates, 10 posts were filled by OBC
candidates, 22 posts were filled by Scheduled Caste candidates
and 4 posts were filled by Scheduled Tribe candidates, meaning
thereby that out of 245 posts, 158 posts were filled by the
Department. The record of the case further reveals that after the
process of selection was over, the Appellant prepared a merit list/
panel of all qualified candidates and in the process, first list of
unreserved category candidates was prepared which included
candidates as per the performance in the examination including
the candidates belonging to reserve category candidates who
have not availed the concession or any relaxation of their own
category reservation and who have scored higher marks or marks
at par with the candidates belonging to unreserved category
candidates and, therefore, such selected candidates were coined
as candidates on their own merit and their names find place in the
unreserved category list. The Respondents after fulfilling the
notified unreserved posts have kept the remaining qualified
unreserved candidates in the waiting list of the selection panel
and thereafter the list of OBC candidates was prepared by taking
the remaining top OBC candidates until the total number of OBC
posts are filled and are declared selected. The same exercise was
SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 & Anr. Page 12 of 28


done for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates. In the
present case, Respondent No. 1 secured 128.08 marks which was
less than the last candidate in the unreserved category of 122
candidates, therefore, he was not considered for appointment
against the post meant for unreserved category and was kept in
the unreserved selection panel of 21 candidates who scored less
than the last candidate of the unreserved list.
28. This Court has carefully gone through the office
memorandum dated 02.07.1997 issued by the Department of
Personnel and Training and it is clear from the reading of the
Impugned Judgment that the Division Bench of the High Court
has not considered the said Office Memorandum in its right
perspective. The record of the case further reveals that the
Appellant Authority maintained reservation roster as
“Reservation Register” as per the format given in Annexure 1 of
Chapter 5 of Brochure on reservation of SC/ST/OBC circulated
vide DOPT Office Memorandum dated 23.01.2014.
29. The facts of the case also reveal that the Division Bench
of the High Court has also failed to appreciate the fundamental
fact that the reservation roster comes into picture only after
selection process is over and a reservation register or roster is a
list of employees of a cadre, who are on the payroll of the
organization after joining their duty.
SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 & Anr. Page 13 of 28


30. There are mainly two-fold purposes of maintaining
reservation register or roster. Firstly, to ascertain that any given
point of time, the number of employees in a cadre belonging to a
particular category (SC, ST and OBC) does not exceed their
lawful quota in the cadre. The second purpose is to determine
the number of posts in all the categories (UR, SC, ST and OBC)
which is vacant for future recruitments. Therefore, the
reservation roster is not used to make selections during the
recruitment process, but only to define number of vacant posts
for advertising for recruitment. However, since reservation
register or roster defines the quota available for recruitment, it
can be used to decide who deserves selection and who does not
deserve selection on account of a concerned category quota being
filled by more meritorious candidates in the category available
for the concerned candidate.
31. The Appellant Authority has justified its stand in shifting
reserve category candidates towards the list of unreserved
category candidates as they have obtained marks more than the
candidates belonging to unreserved category or at par with the
candidates belonging to unreserved category candidates.
32. The issue in respect of migration of reserved category
candidates who has not availed any concession or relaxation has
been considered in detailed by this Court in Rajasthan High
SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 & Anr. Page 14 of 28


Court & Anr. v. Rajat Yadav & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 14112
of 2024 decided on 19.12.2025, wherein this Court after taking
into account all the judgments on the subject has held that a
candidate belonging to reserve category who has scored higher
marks than the cut off marks for the General Category candidates
has to be treated as having qualified against an open unreserved
vacant post. This Court in the aforesaid case in paragraph 58 to
74 as held as under:
58. We begin our observations, analysis and
ruling on migration by refreshing our memory with
certain well-established principles in relation to
affirmative action under our Constitution. It is well-
settled that the concept of ‘equality before law’
ingrained in Article 14 of the Constitution of India
contemplates, inter alia, elimination of inequalities
in status, facilities and opportunities not only
amongst individuals but also amongst groups of
people and is aimed at securing the educational and
economic interests of the weaker sections of the
society and to protect them from social injustice and
exploitation. The equal protection clause urges
affirmative action for those who are placed
unequally. Affirmative action is also recognised by
Article 16. Then again, Article 335 thereof
provides for special consideration in the matter of
claims of the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes
for public employment. The entire field of law
relating to affirmative action is so well occupied by
authoritative decisions that we consider it
unnecessary to burden this judgment by referring to
the same. What particularly concerns us in these
SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 & Anr. Page 15 of 28


appeals is not a sterile invocation of formal legal
equality, but an assessment of the real-world
consequences flowing from the principle of
equality. The focus, therefore, must be on outcomes
as much as on rules.
1
59. Indra Sawhney (supra) explained the
principles of reservation. Hon’ble B.P. Jeevan
Reddy, J. (as His Lordship then was) declared, inter
alia, that where a vertical reservation is made in
favour of a backward class, the candidates in this
category may compete for open or general category
and that if they are appointed on merit in the open
or general category, their number will not be
counted against the backward class category and,
as such, it cannot be considered that the vertical
reservations have been filled up to the extent
candidates of this category have migrated to the
open category on merit.
2
60. In Saurav Yadav (supra), Hon’ble S.
Ravindra Bhat, J. in His Lordship’s supplementing
opinion outlined the features of vertical and
horizontal reservation as follows:
59. The features of vertical reservations
are:
59.1. They cannot be filled by the open
category, or categories of candidates
other than those specified and have to be
filled by candidates of the social
category concerned only (SC/ST/OBC).

1
1992 Supp (3) SCC 217
2
(2021) 4 SCC 542
SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 & Anr. Page 16 of 28


59.2. Mobility (“migration”) from the
reserved (specified category) to the
unreserved (open category) slot is
possible, based on meritorious
performance.
59.3. In case of migration from reserved
to open category, the vacancy in the
reserved category should be filled by
another person from the same specified
category, lower in rank.
59.4. If the vacancies cannot be filled by
the specified categories due to shortfall
of candidates, the vacancies are to be
“carried forward” or dealt with
appropriately by rules.
60. Horizontal reservations on the other
hand, by their nature, are not inviolate
pools or carved in stone. They are
premised on their overlaps and are
“interlocking” reservations. As a
sequel, they are to be calculated
concurrently and along with the
inviolate “vertical” (or “social”)
reservation quotas, by application of the
various steps laid out with clarity in
para 21.3 of Lalit, J.’s judgment. They
cannot be carried forward. The first rule
that applies to filling horizontal
reservation quotas is one of adjustment
i.e. examining whether on merit any of
the horizontal categories are adjusted in
the merit list in the open category, and
then, in the quota for such horizontal
SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 & Anr. Page 17 of 28


category within the particular
specified/social reservation.
61. The open category is not a “quota”,
but rather available to all women and
men alike. …”.
61. The above observations were followed by His
Lordship’s observation, found almost at the end of
the opinion, that the “open category is open to all,
and the only condition for a candidate to be shown
in it is merit, regardless of whether reservation
benefit of either type is available to her or him.”.
The same have a profound meaning, and needs to
be translated into action without being
unnecessarily bothered by a term like ‘migration’.
62. Drawing inspiration from the guiding light
provided by Indra Sawhney (supra) and Saurav
Yadav (supra), we hold that the word ‘open’
connotes nothing but ‘open’, meaning thereby that
vacant posts which are sought to be filled by
earmarking it as ‘open’ do not fall in any category.
One does find categories like ‘open’ or
‘unreserved’ or ‘general’ being widely used in
course of recruitment drives but they are meant to
signify the open/unreserved vacant posts on which
any suitable candidate can be appointed, regardless
of the caste/tribe/class/gender of such candidate.
For all intents and purposes, the vacancies on posts
which are notified/advertised as open or unreserved
or general, as the terms suggest, are not reserved
for any caste/tribe/class/gender and are, thus, open
to all notwithstanding that a cross-section of society
can also compete for appointment on vacant posts
which are ‘reserved’ – vertical or horizontal – as
mentioned in the notification/advertisement.
SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 & Anr. Page 18 of 28


63. Now, turning to the dictionary meaning of the
word ‘migration’, what we find is that the same
typically refers to the act of moving from one place
to another, often involving a change of residence or
location. This can apply to various contexts like
human migration, animal migration, data
migration, etc. In general, migration involves a
change of location, often with the intention of
settling or establishing a new presence in the new
location.
64. In the context of reservation in public
employment, the word ‘migration’ refers to a
candidate claiming benefits or entitlements. The
word is used in, at least, two scenarios.
65. Scenario 1 is “Inter-State Reservation
Migration” envisaging a portability of reservation
benefits. Since we are not concerned with a
scenario 1 case, we make no observation except
noting two decisions of this Court. The first is
3
Action Committee v. Union of India where it has
been held by a Constitution Bench that a person
belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in
relation to his original State, of which he is a
permanent or ordinary resident, cannot be deemed
to be so in relation to any other State on his
migration to that State for the purpose of
employment, education, etc. The second is Uttar
Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Sanjay
4
Kumar Singh holding that if a person certified as
Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in one State
migrates to another State, then he would not be
entitled to the benefit available to Scheduled

3
(1994) 5 SCC 244
4
(2003) 7 SCC 657
SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 & Anr. Page 19 of 28


Caste/Scheduled Tribe in the State to which he has
migrated unless he belongs to the Scheduled
Caste/Scheduled Tribe in that State.
66. Scenario 2, with which we are concerned,
occurs when there is a “Merit Induced Shift”.
Although this shift is largely referred to as
migration, we find in Saurav Yadav (supra) Hon’ble
Ravindra Bhat, J. explaining the term as adjustment
of a reserve category candidate in the unreserved
category based on his/her merit.
67. Here, we do not see reason to agree with Mr.
Gupta that any shift or adjustment, or even
migration as he contends, as such is required where
a candidate, who is also otherwise entitled to
compete and be selected for a reserved vacant post,
happens to outscore, outperform and outshine not
only reserved candidates but also general
candidates and figures at the top of the list of
successful candidates prepared after a
qualifying/preliminary examination (for
screening/shortlisting) solely by dint of the marks
secured by him/her in such examination (without
availing any concession/relaxation) thereby
entitling him/her to participate in the second tier of
a further suitability test. Such a meritorious
candidate, notwithstanding that he/she belongs to a
reserved category, be it Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Class, must of
necessity (arising out of the concept of equality
before law and equal protection of the laws in
Article 14, and extended to Article 16 in matters of
public employment) be treated as a candidate who
has competed for the ‘unreserved’ category and not
SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 & Anr. Page 20 of 28


the ‘reserved’ category, thereby obviating the need
for any ‘migration’ or, so to say, shift or adjustment.
68. In a two-tier process, as in the present case,
we wish to illustrate how, generally, the exercise of
screening/short-listing of candidates (belonging to
General/Open, Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe
or Other Backward Class, etc., categories) with five
times the number of vacancies in each category,
who would literally be gaining the ‘pass’ to reach
the second tier to participate in the typewriting test
on computer can be conducted without complaints
of unfairness and nontransparency in the process.
Say, 100 vacancies in the General/Open category
are notified and a similar number for the reserved
categories is also notified. Five times the number of
vacancies would mean not more than 500
candidates can be screened/shortlisted for the
General/Open category. At the outset, based on the
performance of the candidates who take the written
test, the recruiting authority has to screen/short-list
the candidates to be included in the General/Open
category and subsequently for reserved categories.
Judicial notice can be taken that this exercise is
often facilitated by preparing a broadsheet, also
called a short-list, containing names of all the
candidates (who acquit themselves successfully in
the written test). For the preparation of the short-
list for the General/Open category, candidates are
first arranged strictly in descending order of merit
and, thereafter, candidates falling short of the cut-
off for such category figure in descending order of
merit according to their respective reservation
category in separate short-lists. If any candidate,
say ‘C’, being the member of a Scheduled Caste or
Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Class,
SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 & Anr. Page 21 of 28


outscores the candidates not belonging to any
reserved category in the written test, he/she shall be
included in the short-list for the General/Open
category. At this stage, there is no question of any
migration; merit is the only criterion amongst all
candidates who have to be seen as belonging to
General/Open category. Once ‘C’ gains the ‘pass’
for the second-tier process and qualifies in the
typewriting test on computer obtaining marks in
excess of the requisite marks, his/her marks
obtained in such test would be required to be added
to the marks obtained in the written test. Once
again, a broad-sheet has to be prepared based on
cumulative scores containing names of all the
candidates in order of highest to lowest marks with
the more meritorious candidates, obviously,
figuring at the top. Preparation of this broad-sheet
is a handy tool for drawing up the final merit list of
candidates. From the broad-sheet, names of
candidates drawn up in order of merit with
candidates ranked according to their marks in
descending order, commonly called the Combined
Merit List, ought to reflect where each one of the
aspiring candidates stand on merit. If ‘C’ figures
within the first 100 candidates in order of merit, i.e.,
the number of vacant posts for the General/Open
category, he/she shall be counted as a
General/Open candidate for the purpose of
appointment. Here too, there is no question of
migration for the reason we have already indicated
above, i.e., merit being the only criterion and not
caste/tribe/gender, etc. If ‘C’ does not figure in the
first 100 candidates and whilst preparing the merit
list of reserved category candidates it is found that
he/she figures within the specified number of
vacancies in the reserved category to which he/she
SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 & Anr. Page 22 of 28


belongs and which can be filled up by appointing
him/her, he/she ought to be counted as a candidate
of such reserved category for appointment. If ‘C’
fails to figure in the merit list for the reserved
category list as well, question of his/her
appointment would not arise.
69. We, however, sound a note of caution that our
observations above are relatable to the selection
process of the kind under consideration. It has not
been shown with reference to the recruitment rules
that the same ordain otherwise. If, at all, the
recruitment rules governing any selection process
ordain otherwise than what is observed above,
obviously the recruitment rules would have
precedence subject to the condition that such rule
passes the test of constitutionality.
70. Reverting to the appeals under
consideration, we see no reason to say that there
has been a ‘migration’, in the sense of either an
adjustment or a shift being made. At the time of
screening/short-listing of candidates based on their
performance in the qualifying examination and even
thereafter, initially all the aspiring candidates
including the reserved candidates should be seen as
General/Open candidates. If such a candidate,
notwithstanding that he/she belongs to a reserved
category maintains excellence in standard even in
the second tier of examination (typewriting test, in
this case), he/she would cease to be treated as a
candidate belonging to any category and entitled to
treatment as a candidate seeking appointment on a
vacant post which is categorised as General/Open.
Should there be a decline in performance in the
second tier test pushing out the candidate from the
SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 & Anr. Page 23 of 28


zone of consideration for appointment on posts
which are open or unreserved or general but not
beyond the zone for the reserved vacant posts, it is
necessary to regard him/her as a candidate
belonging to the reserved category to which he/she
belongs, thereby paving the way for him/her to stake
a claim for consideration for appointment on an
appropriate reserved vacant post.
71. In the milieu of facts, none of the petitioning
candidates has been shown to have availed of any
concession/relaxation. No law – either rule or
executive instruction – has been shown which
prevented the High Court from treating the reserved
candidates as General/Open candidates once it
transpired that they outshone the latter. Question of
any migration or deriving twin benefits of migration
did not and could not arise in the circumstances.
72. If we accept the proposition advanced by the
appellants, it would not only have a detrimental
impact on candidates from the disadvantaged
sections but also erode the principles enshrined in
the Constitution.
73. Now, turning to Chattar Singh (supra) which
was heavily relied on by the appellants, we have to
record that the ratio laid down therein must be
appreciated in its proper context. In that case, the
scheme of examination clearly provided that the
marks obtained in the preliminary examination
would not be considered for the determination of
final merit. The rule therein, appearing from
paragraph 5 of the decision, read as follows:
5. Rule 13 of the Rules prescribes the
mode of conducting preliminary as
SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 & Anr. Page 24 of 28


well as Main Examination. It reads as
under:
“13. Scheme of Examination,
personality and viva voce test.—
The competitive examination shall
be conducted by the Commission in
two stages, i.e., Preliminary
Examination and Main
Examination as per the scheme
specified in Schedule III. The marks
obtained in the Preliminary
Examination by the candidates,
who are declared qualified for
admission to the Main Examination
will not be counted for determining
their final order of merit…”
(emphasis ours)
It is in view of this rule that this Court held that the
claim of reserved category candidates to be
accommodated in the open category on the basis of
marks obtained will be determined at the final
stage. We find no reason to differ from that
principle. However, the facts of the present case
stand on a distinct footing. First, the main written
examination here is not a mere
preliminary/screening test but an integral and
substantive component of the selection process,
carrying 300 marks out of a total of 400 -
constituting 75% of the final assessment. Its weight
and determinative value distinguish it from the
limited preliminary stage examination
contemplated in Chattar Singh (supra), thereby
rendering that ratio inapplicable to the present
factual matrix. Secondly, the inclusion of a reserved
category candidate in the open merit list at the stage
SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 & Anr. Page 25 of 28


of shortlisting cannot be equated with ‘migration’,
for no benefit or concession of reservation is
availed. Such inclusion is purely merit-based and,
therefore, stands on a plane distinct from the
concept of ‘migration’ as addressed in Chattar
Singh (supra).
74. Before we part, we find it necessary to enter
a caveat. A situation could arise, if the aforesaid
principles were applied, of a reserved category
candidate based on his/her performance outshining
General/Open candidates and figuring in the
General merit list, but finding the options to be
limited. He/she may, as a consequence of being
counted as a General candidate, lose out on a
preferred service or a preferred post because the
same is reserved for a reserved category candidate.
Should such an eventuality occur, the same is bound
to breed dissatisfaction, disappointment and
displeasure which are not in the interests of public
service. After all, fairness matters even in public
employment. Where adjustment against the
unreserved category would result in a more
meritorious reserved category candidate being
displaced in favour of a less meritorious candidate
within the same category for a preferred service or
a preferred post within the reserved quota, the
former must be permitted to be considered against
the service/post in the reserved quota. This would
ensure merit being preserved both across
categories and within them, and that reservation
functions as a means of inclusion rather than an
instrument of disadvantage. The approach adopted
by us in holding so is consistent with the view
expressed by this Court, encapsulated in paragraph
SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 & Anr. Page 26 of 28


5
24.1 of Alok Kumar Pandit (supra). We may also
mention here that prior to the view expressed in
Alok Kumar Pandit (supra), the High Court at
Calcutta in a somewhat like situation took the same
6
view in Mukul Biswas v. State of West Bengal ”.
33. In the considered opinion of this Court, the controversy
involved in the present case is no longer res integra . It is now a
settled proposition of law that a candidate belonging to reserve
category who has scored marks higher than the cut off marks for
the General Category is to be treated as having qualified against
an open or unreserved vacant post. In the present case, no
concession or relaxation was extended to the reserve category
candidates who have been appointed on their own merit against
the posts meant for the General Category candidates as they have
scored more marks than the General Category candidates in the
selection process. The facts of the case further makes it clear that
all the vacancies notified for unreserved category i.e. 122 posts
were filled up based upon the marks scored by candidates in the
process of selection on their own merit and, therefore, the
Appellant Authority were justified in migrating the candidates
belonging to reserve category to the unreserved list on the basis
of their own merit as they have scored higher marks than the
General category candidates.

5
(2012) 13 SCC 516
6
2010 SCC Online Cal 1983
SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 & Anr. Page 27 of 28


34. This Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment
delivered by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division
Bench of the Kerala High Court deserves to be set aside and are
accordingly set aside and the question of directing appointment
of Respondent No. 1 i.e. Sham Krishna B. or any other person
belonging to unreserved category does not arise as all vacancies
notified under the unreserved category have been filled strictly in
accordance with the merit list prepared by the Appellant
Authority.
35. Accordingly, the appeal arising out of
SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 is allowed and the appeal arising out
of SLP (C) No. 12937 of 2021 is dismissed. No order as to costs.



...…………………………………J.
[M. M. SUNDRESH]


...…………………………………J.
[SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA]

New Delhi
January 16, 2026.
SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 & Anr. Page 28 of 28