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

The Applicant, belonging to the Most Backward Community (MBC), applied for the post of Construction Helper (Work Charged) pursuant to a 2015 recruitment notification issued by the Puducherry Electricity Department.

The selection criteria included marks from ITI, SSLC, apprentice training, and employment exchange seniority.

The Applicant secured 137.771 marks.

While the cut-off for the Unreserved (UR) category was 136.700, the cut-off for the OBC category was 143.300.

The Respondents (3 to 7), also belonging to the OBC category, were selected under the UR category despite having lower marks than the Applicant because they were within the general age limit of 32 years.

The Applicant, being over 32 years of age, had availed age relaxation (up to 35 years) available to MBC candidates to participate in the selection process.

Consequently, the Department rejected her claim for a UR seat, leading her to challenge the non-selection as discriminatory and arbitrary.

1. Whether a candidate who applied as a reserved-category candidate, but scored higher than the unreserved cut-off, can seek appointment under the unreserved category after having availed age relaxation to participate in the recruitment process.

The Tribunal primarily applied the principle established by the Supreme Court in Deepa E.V. v. Union of India & Others (2017) 12 SCC 680, which held that a reserved category candidate who avails age relaxation is ineligible to migrate to the General/Unreserved category.

It further relied on the recent precedent in Union of India & Others v. Sajib Roy (Civil Appeal No. 2025, arising from SLP (C) Nos. 21392-21393/2019), which clarified that if recruitment rules or office memorandums (specifically OM dated 01.07.1998) impose an embargo, reserved candidates who avail concessions cannot migrate to unreserved seats regardless of merit.

The Tribunal distinguished State of Tamil Nadu & Others v. K. Shobana & Others (2021) 4 SCC 686, noting it concerned specific statutory interpretations of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Act 2016 not applicable here.

The Tribunal reasoned that the eligibility for the UR category is strictly bound by the general age limit (18–32 years).

Although the Applicant’s marks (137.771) were higher than the UR cut-off (136.700), she only qualified for the recruitment process by invoking the 3-year age relaxation provided for MBC/OBC candidates.

The Tribunal observed that Respondents 3 to 7 were selected under the UR category because they satisfied the age criterion of being under 32 years, unlike the Applicant.

Applying the ratio in Sajib Roy, the Tribunal concluded that availing a concession such as age relaxation precludes a candidate from "migrating" to the unreserved category, as the relaxation itself is a benefit of reservation that confines the candidate to the reserved quota.

The Tribunal found no merit in the Applicant’s challenge to the impugned order dated 29.06.2016.

Accordingly, the Original Application (OA) was dismissed with no order as to costs.