Merit-Based Migration of Departmental Candidates Permissible if Marks Exceed Reserved Category Cut-Off Standards

The applicants, primarily Constables in the Delhi Police, participated in the 2013 combined examination for the post of Sub-Inspector (Executive).

During the recruitment process, a corrigendum dated 09.04.2013 was issued, reducing the minimum service requirement for "departmental candidates" from five years to three years and revising age limits.

Some applicants, having applied under the "Open OBC" category before the corrigendum, sought to be considered under the "Departmental UR/OBC" categories as their marks exceeded the departmental cut-offs.

Relying on the precedent in Vinod Kumar v. SSC and Shrey Bajaj v. SSC, they challenged the respondents' failure to fill 53 unfilled vacancies and their refusal to allow "migration" from open to departmental categories based on revised merit.

1. Whether candidates who applied under the "Open" category but satisfy the revised "Departmental" eligibility criteria (via the 09.04.2013 corrigendum) are entitled to be considered against departmental vacancies if their marks exceed the departmental cut-off.

2. Whether the respondents were obligated to fill all reported unfilled vacancies from the 2013 recruitment instead of carrying them forward to subsequent years.

3. Whether a candidate whose marks are lower than the last selected candidate in their claimed category is entitled to appointment.

The Tribunal applied the principle of "migration" between categories based on merit as established in Priyanka Prakash Kulkarni v. MPSC and Chaya & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, which held that relaxation in qualifying criteria affects only eligibility, not merit, and does not prohibit a candidate from seeking selection in a general or different category if they are more meritorious.

It utilized the legal maxim Omne majus continet in se minus (the greater contains the less), suggesting that higher merit-based scores in an open category naturally qualify a candidate for a departmental slot with a lower cut-off.

The Tribunal also adhered to the binding precedent of Vinod Kumar v. SSC, which attained finality after the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP on 11.04.2022.

The Tribunal reasoned that the 09.04.2013 corrigendum changed the eligibility landscape mid-process, and candidates should not be penalized for their "honesty" in applying under the open category before the relaxation was announced.

It found that since the scheme of examination was common, the marks obtained by candidates like Sushil Kumar (257.75) and Shubham Tieotia (251.25) significantly exceeded the Departmental UR cut-off of 239.00; thus, they were entitled to be adjusted against those slots.

Regarding Lalit Mohan Bhatt, who applied correctly in the departmental category, the Tribunal noted his distinct footing and entitlement based on the respondents' prior admissions regarding available vacancies.

For Gajender Kumar, the Tribunal found that his score (221.50) was lower than the last selected candidate in his category (224.75); thus, he could not claim a right to appointment as the "higher cut-off necessarily subsumes the lower marks" and cannot be Diluted.

Lalit Mohan Bhatt must be offered appointment in the Departmental UR category and Umesh Kumar, having scored higher than the last selected Departmental OBC candidate, is entitled to benefits.

The respondents were directed to create supernumerary vacancies to accommodate these appointments against future limited departmental vacancies to avoid displacing existing personnel.

Relief was restricted to the present applicants to prevent further mass litigation, with the exercise to be completed within two months.