Reserved category candidates securing higher merit than unreserved cut-offs must be considered against unreserved seats.

The applicant, an SC category candidate, participated in the Common Recruitment Examination (CRE)-2024 for the post of Psychiatric Social Worker (PSW).

He secured Rank 149 with 225/400 marks and was initially allotted AIIMS Patna under the Unreserved (UR) category on merit.

AIIMS Patna subsequently withdrew the PSW post due to legal issues, and the applicant’s name was excluded from document verification lists for other institutes like AIIMS Raipur, even though candidates with lower ranks (e.g., Rank 234 and 268) were included.

Following an interim order by the Tribunal on 09.10.2025, the respondents conducted the applicant's document verification and found him eligible under the UR category.

1. Whether the respondents were obligated to consider the applicant for his alternative preferences (AIIMS Raipur/Bhopal) after the posts at his first-choice institute (AIIMS Patna) were withdrawn.

2. Whether an SC category candidate who secures higher marks than the UR cut-off is entitled to be adjusted against an unreserved vacancy on own merit.

The Court applied the principle of "own merit" reservation as established in Sourabh Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, which mandates that reserved category candidates who qualify on the same standards as general candidates must be adjusted against unreserved seats.

The recruitment was also governed by the "Pattern Scheme of Examination" under Advertisement Notice No. 171/2025, which stipulated that seat allocation is based on merit-cum-choice.

The Tribunal reasoned that AIIMS Delhi, as the coordinating body, had a duty to convey the eligibility of candidates originally recommended for AIIMS Patna to other indenting institutes (Raipur/Bhopal) once the Patna vacancies were withdrawn.

The respondents' counter-affidavit admitted that the applicant secured Rank 149 and was "provisionally qualified under UR/SC category," making him eligible for AIIMS Raipur on merit.

The Tribunal observed that since the applicant’s marks (225/400) were higher than those of candidates called for verification (such as Respondent No. 6 at Rank 234), his exclusion was legally untenable.

By opening the applicant's results during the proceedings, the respondents confirmed his eligibility and selection under the UR-2 category.

It directed the respondents to take the applicant's selection to its logical conclusion and complete the appointment process within two months, provided he remains suitable and maintains a higher merit than the UR cut-off.

The OA was disposed of with no order as to costs.