Reserved category candidates availing age relaxation cannot migrate to unreserved seats despite securing higher merit.

The Applicant, belonging to the Vaniyar (MBC/OBC) community, applied for the post of Construction Helper (Work Charged) under a recruitment notification dated 03.06.2015

The selection was based on marks from ITI, SSLC, apprentice training, and employment exchange seniority

The Applicant secured 135.271 marks but was placed on the waiting list

Respondents 3 to 8, who also belonged to the OBC category but secured fewer marks than the Applicant, were appointed under the Unreserved (UR) category

The official respondents contended that the age limit for the UR category was 18–32 years, whereas the Applicant had crossed 32 years and availed of the 3-year age relaxation available to OBC candidates

Consequently, while the Applicant met the UR marks threshold (134.129), he failed the UR age criteria; conversely, he did not meet the OBC category cut-off of 143.300

Whether a candidate who applied as a reserved-category candidate but scored higher than other candidates can seek appointment under the unreserved category after having availed age relaxation for participating in the recruitment process

The Tribunal primarily applied the principle established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Deepa E.V. v. Union of India & Others (2017), which held that a candidate availing age relaxation under a reserved category cannot subsequently claim a right to be adjusted against the General/Unreserved category

It further relied on the recent Supreme Court judgment in Union of India & Others v. Sajib Roy (2025), which clarified that if a reserved candidate avails concessions (age/fee) to participate in an open competition, they are ineligible to migrate to unreserved seats if an embargo exists in the recruitment rules or if they exceed the unreserved age limit

The Tribunal distinguished Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of UP, noting that its application depends on the specific statutory scheme and the absence of an express bar

The Tribunal observed that while the Applicant’s marks (135.271) exceeded the UR cut-off (134.129), his age exceeded the maximum UR limit of 32 years

By opting for age relaxation to qualify for the recruitment process as an OBC candidate, the Applicant effectively restricted his candidacy to the OBC quota

The Tribunal noted that Respondents 3 to 8, despite having lower marks, were under 32 years of age and thus remained eligible for consideration under the UR category based on merit without needing relaxation

Applying the ratio from Sajib Roy, the Tribunal reasoned that availing a "concession in aid of reservation" (like age relaxation) prevents a candidate from being treated as a general category candidate for the purpose of appointment against unreserved vacancies if they do not independently meet the general category's eligibility standards

The action of the respondents in appointing Respondents 3 to 8 was found to be in accordance with the recruitment rules and merit-based standards

Consequently, the Original Application (OA) was dismissed as devoid of merit