OBC candidates qualifying on merit without relaxation must be adjusted against unreserved vacancies.

Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti advertised 27 posts of TGT (Urdu) in 2016.

The applicant, an OBC candidate, obtained 130 marks and was placed at serial no. 9 in the combined merit list.

The OBC candidates at serial nos. 7 and 8 each obtained 132 marks and were selected against OBC vacancies.

The applicant contended that, as those candidates had not used any reservation relaxation and their marks placed them within the range of the unreserved vacancies, they should have been adjusted against unreserved posts. That would have released OBC vacancies for consideration of candidates lower in the OBC merit list, including the applicant

The respondents maintained that the OBC vacancies had been filled, that the candidates could not be shifted after selection and joining, and that the applicant had relied on OBC age relaxation and could therefore be considered only against an OBC vacancy

The Tribunal allowed the application and directed the respondents to recast the select list

1. Whether OBC candidates who secured marks within the range of unreserved vacancies, and had not availed relaxation, were required to be adjusted against unreserved vacancies rather than OBC vacancies

2. Whether, upon such adjustment, the applicant was entitled to consideration against a resultant OBC vacancy, subject to merit and the applicable recruitment conditions

The Tribunal applied the principle that unreserved vacancies are open to candidates of all categories, and that a reserved-category candidate who qualifies on merit without availing a relevant relaxation is to be adjusted against an unreserved vacancy; the corresponding reserved vacancy is then available to the next eligible candidate in that category according to merit.

It relied principally on *BSNL & Anr. v. Sandeep Choudhary & Ors.*, (2022) 11 SCC 779, and on *Tej Pal Yadav v. Union of India & Ors.*, 174 (2010) DLT 510 (DB), together with its decision in O.A. No. 1719/2016, as supporting merit-based migration.

It distinguished *Union of India v. Ramesh Ram & Ors.*, (2010) 7 SCC 234, as concerning the specific service-allocation scheme under Rule 16(2) of the Civil Services Examination Rules, rather than laying down an absolute bar to merit migration in the present context.

The Tribunal also referred to the equality-of-opportunity principle under Article 16, as discussed in *Triloki Nath Tiku v. State of Jammu & Kashmir*, AIR 1967 SC 1283.

The Tribunal found that the candidates at serial nos. 7 and 8 had scored more than the applicant and that their eligibility for adjustment against unreserved vacancies depended on whether they had secured selection on merit without availing relaxation.

Their initial placement or appointment against OBC vacancies could not, by itself, foreclose that inquiry.

The respondents had themselves accepted that certain OBC candidates were considered against unreserved vacancies because they met the unreserved age limit without age relaxation; the same principle therefore had to be applied consistently to the higher-ranked candidates at serial nos. 7 and 8.

If eligible for unreserved adjustment, they could not be counted against OBC vacancies, and the resulting OBC vacancies had to be considered for the remaining eligible OBC candidates in merit order.

The applicant’s claim was therefore subject to verification of eligibility and the applicable recruitment rules.

The exercise was to be completed within three months of receipt of the order; consequential benefits, if admissible, were to follow on a notional basis.

There was no order as to costs.