Reserved category candidates availing relaxed standards are ineligible for selection against unreserved category vacancies.

The applicant, an OBC candidate with HSC and B.Com qualifications, applied for the post of Lower Division Clerk (LDC) following a 2011 recruitment notification for 400 vacancies in Puducherry

Results for 340 vacancies were published on 18.12.2012, and an additional select list was issued on 28.11.2014

The applicant secured 45.75 marks, while the prescribed cut-off for the OBC category was 48 marks

The applicant challenged G.O. Ms. No. 47 (2005) and G.O. Ms. No. 9 (2010), which sub-classified OBCs into MBC, EBC, BCM, and BT, arguing that meritorious OBC candidates were illegally placed in the reserved category instead of the Unreserved (UR) category, thereby depriving him of an appointment

1. Whether the selection process was arbitrary for failing to move meritorious OBC candidates to the Unreserved category

2. Whether the sub-classification of the OBC category into smaller communal subsets is unconstitutional

3. Whether the applicant, having failed to meet the prescribed cut-off marks, is entitled to seek appointment or challenge the selection list

The Tribunal applied the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) guidelines, which stipulate that SC/ST/OBC candidates who benefit from relaxed standards (such as age relaxation, experience, or extended zone of consideration) must be counted against reserved vacancies and cannot be considered for unreserved vacancies

It relied on the Supreme Court precedent in Deepa E.V. v. Union of India Others (2017) 12 SCC 680, which affirmed this restriction

Additionally, it followed its own earlier ruling in K. Sivayogapriya v. DP (OA No. 1429/2012), which established that selection processes following these DoPT instructions are valid

The Tribunal determined that the applicant lacked the merit necessary for selection, as his score of 45.75 was below the 48-mark cut-off for the OBC category

The court rejected the argument that meritorious reserved candidates should have been shifted to UR vacancies, noting that when relaxed standards (like age relaxation) are applied, those candidates are legally confined to the reserved quota

Regarding the challenge to the sub-classification of OBCs (MBC, EBC, etc.), the Tribunal held that reservation policy issues generally fall outside the scope of individual service grievances and should be addressed via Public Interest Litigation

Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that hundreds of candidates scored between the applicant’s marks and the cut-off, rendering his claim for appointment untenable

It held that the selection process was conducted in accordance with law and established administrative instructions

No order as to costs was issued