The Supreme Court of India allowed appeals filed by the Union of India and set aside a series of High Court rulings that had permitted OBC candidates, who availed age relaxation, to be considered for appointment under the unreserved category despite having applied as reserved candidates.
A Bench comprising Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that the High Court erred in relying on the precedent of Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC 119, since that case was decided under a statutory scheme which expressly allowed such migration. In contrast, the present recruitment process was governed by the Department of Personnel and Training’s Office Memorandum dated July 1, 1998, which expressly bars SC/ST/OBC candidates availing concessions such as age relaxation, experience, or extra attempts from being considered in the unreserved category.
The Court emphasized that while merit-based recruitment remains central, whether reserved candidates who benefited from relaxations can migrate to the general category depends on the specific recruitment rules in force. Where there is no such embargo, migration may be permitted; however, if rules explicitly bar it as in this case, it cannot be allowed.
Accordingly, the Court concluded that the High Court mechanically applied the Jitendra Kumar ratio without appreciating the distinction in regulatory framework, and thus its judgments dated October 12, 2018, and February 26, 2019, stood quashed. The appeals of the Union of India were allowed.
