Reserved category candidates availing age relaxation cannot migrate to unreserved category vacancies on merit.

The Applicant, a member of the OBC category, applied for the post of Construction Helper (Work Charged) in the Electricity Department of Puducherry pursuant to a notification dated 03.06.2015

Selection was based on marks from ITI/SSLC exams, apprentice training, and employment exchange seniority

The Applicant secured 136.786 marks, placing him on the waiting list

The cut-off for the OBC category was 142.571, whereas the Unreserved (UR) category cut-off was 134.129

Although the Applicant's marks exceeded the UR cut-off, he was over 32 years old and had availed of the three-year age relaxation provided to OBC candidates

Respondents 3 to 6, who also belonged to the OBC category but secured fewer marks than the Applicant, were appointed under the UR category because they were below the 32-year age limit

The Applicant challenged the appointment of the private respondents, seeking a direction for his own appointment under the UR category

Whether a candidate who applied as a reserved-category candidate but scored higher than the UR cut-off can seek appointment under the unreserved category after having availed age relaxation

the principle established by the Supreme Court in Deepa E.V. v. Union of India (2017) 12 SCC 680, which held that a reserved category candidate who avails of age relaxation is confined to the reserved category and cannot migrate to the General/UR category

the recent Supreme Court judgment in Union of India & Others v. Sajib Roy (2025), which clarified that if a candidate avails of age concessions in the presence of an applicable Office Memorandum (dated 01.07.1998) or recruitment rule embargo, they are ineligible for UR seats

The court distinguished State of Tamil Nadu v. K. Shobana (2021) 4 SCC 686, noting it dealt with specific state statutes regarding backlog vacancies rather than age-relaxation migration

The Tribunal found that the Applicant’s eligibility for the recruitment process was contingent upon the three-year age relaxation he received as an OBC candidate, as he had already exceeded the maximum UR age limit of 32 years

While his marks (136.786) were higher than the UR cut-off (134.129), the Tribunal reasoned that by availing of a category-specific concession (age relaxation), he effectively opted out of the "level playing field" of the open/UR competition

The Tribunal noted that Respondents 3 to 6 were correctly adjusted against UR vacancies because they met the UR age criteria and did not require relaxation, regardless of their OBC status

Following the "embargo" rule in Sajib Roy, the Tribunal concluded that the Applicant could only be considered against the OBC quota, for which he failed to meet the specific cut-off of 142.571

It held that a reserved-category candidate who avails of age relaxation to participate in a recruitment process is legally barred from migrating to the unreserved category, even if their marks exceed the UR cut-off

Consequently, the Applicant was not entitled to appointment, and the actions of the official respondents were upheld as legal and merit-based