Selection of less meritorious candidates over more meritorious candidates within the same category is legally unsustainable.

The Staff Selection Commission (SSC) issued a notice on 21.07.2018 for recruitment to the post of Constable (GD) in various CAPFs

The respondent, an OBC candidate who availed of age relaxation, scored 55.10 marks in the written examination but was not called for a medical examination

He filed a writ petition after learning that another candidate, Sagar Debnath, who scored lower (46.26 marks), was appointed following a court direction in a previous batch of petitions

The appellants contended that the respondent failed to meet the OBC cut-off and was ineligible for Unreserved (UR) posts due to exceeding the age limit

The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition on 20.06.2025, directing the appellants to consider the respondent for appointment

The Union of India challenged this decision in the present Writ Appeal.

1. Whether the appointment of a candidate with lesser marks (Sagar Debnath) while denying the same to a more meritorious candidate (the respondent) from the same category is legally sustainable

2. Whether the appellants can introduce a new plea in the Writ Appeal regarding the respondent’s eligibility for UR category posts based on age relaxation

3. Whether the writ petition was barred by the doctrine of laches

The court applied the settled legal principle that more meritorious candidates from reserved categories who secure marks higher than or equal to the Unreserved (UR) category threshold should be considered for UR posts

The court also adhered to the principle that administrative actions must be non-discriminatory and that if a benefit is extended to a less meritorious candidate under a general court direction to "consider," it must also be extended to more meritorious, similarly situated candidates

Furthermore, the court applied the rule of procedure that new factual pleas not raised in the original counter-affidavit cannot be introduced at the appellate stage

The Court observed that while the appellants claimed Sagar Debnath was appointed per a previous court order, that order only directed "consideration" and did not mandate the appointment of a less meritorious person over a more meritorious one

The Court found the appellants' failure to disclose the UR cut-off marks in their counter-affidavit significant, as it prevented a comparison of merit

The Court rejected the appellants' new argument that candidates availing age relaxation are barred from UR category seats, noting it was not raised before the Single Judge and lacked legal precedent

Regarding laches, the Court held that the respondent filed the petition promptly (03.02.2024) after the less meritorious candidate was appointed (13.06.2023), thus the delay was explained

The Court emphasized that when both candidates belong to the same category (OBC), the state cannot select the less meritorious individual

The Court upheld the Single Judge's order directing the appellants to consider the respondent's case for the post of Constable (GD) against any available or future vacancies arising from the same advertisement (dated 21.07.2018) without unsettling the existing merit list, provided he is found medically fit and otherwise eligible

No costs were awarded