Reserved category candidates securing equal or higher marks than the Unreserved cutoff must be considered under UR category on merit.

The applicant, a 25-year-old candidate, applied for the post of Head Constable (AWO/TPO) under the EWS category.

His candidature was rejected/cancelled on June 7, 2024, because his EWS certificate was issued after the prescribed cut-off date

The applicant secured 76.921 marks, which is identical to the marks secured by the last selected candidate in the Unreserved (UR) category

When the respondents declared a reserve panel result on February 6, 2026, the applicant’s name was excluded from the UR list despite his high merit

The applicant challenged this non-inclusion, seeking appointment under the UR category based on his merit

1. Whether a candidate who applied under a reserved category (EWS) but secured marks equal to or higher than the last selected candidate in the Unreserved (UR) category is entitled to be considered against a UR vacancy on merit

2. Whether the non-submission of a valid category certificate by the cut-off date precludes a candidate from being considered under the Unreserved category

The Tribunal primarily applied the settled legal principles established in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) and Saurav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021), which mandate that if a reserved category candidate secures higher marks than the last UR candidate, they must be adjusted against the UR quota on merit

It further referred to Clause 8.1 of the examination notice, which explicitly provides that where a claim for a reserved category (SC/ST/OBC/EWS) is not entertained, the candidature should be considered under the Unreserved (UR) category

The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s merit (76.921 marks) was undisputed and matched the cutoff for the UR category

Since the applicant was not seeking any age or other relaxation specific to the EWS category, his merit alone governed his placement

The Tribunal reasoned that the respondents' failure to include him in the UR reserve panel violated the "merit-cum-choice" principle and the specific provisions of the recruitment notice (Clause 8.1), which directs that candidates with invalid certificates should be treated as UR candidates

The court found that since the applicant's marks met the UR threshold, the validity of his EWS certificate became irrelevant to his right to be appointed under the UR category

The court directed the respondents to consider the applicant under the UR category and, if otherwise found eligible, issue an offer of appointment within 45 days

No costs were awarded