The Delhi High Court has clarified that the principle allowing a meritorious reserved category candidate to be considered for an unreserved vacancy is subject to the governing recruitment rules and executive instructions. Where an executive instruction or rule explicitly states that a candidate who avails a concession, such as age relaxation, is to be considered only against the quota for their reserved category, that candidate is barred from ‘migrating’ to the unreserved category.
Consequently, the Court held that a candidate who enters a recruitment process by availing a category-specific age relaxation cannot claim a right to be treated as an unreserved candidate for shortlisting or selection, even if their examination score is higher than the cut-off for the unreserved category.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that the Petitioners’ participation in the recruitment process was entirely dependent on their availing age relaxation as ESM candidates, a fact they did not dispute. Thus, the Bench held that a candidate who relies on a category-linked relaxation to cross the eligibility barrier cannot simultaneously demand to be treated as an unreserved candidate for the purpose of being called against UR vacancies.
The Bench found that the Petitioners sought the benefit of two different planes: first, eligibility through ESM age relaxation, and second, treatment as a UR candidate for shortlisting. Terming this position as untenable, the Bench concluded that their consideration must be confined to the ESM horizontal quota.
The Bench explained that the principle of ‘migration’ is not an absolute doctrine and operates within the framework of the specific rules and instructions governing the recruitment. Since the Petitioners were processed in the ESM stream due to age relaxation and did not fall within the ESM shortlist zone, their exclusion was justified under the policy.
Briefly, the petitioners, who are ex-servicemen (ESM category), applied for recruitment to non-executive cadres of the Airport Authority of India (AAI) under Advertisement No. 01/2025/NR. The Petitioners were all over the prescribed upper-age limit of 30 years for the unreserved category (UR category) and participated in the process by availing the age relaxation applicable to ex-servicemen.
Following a computer-based examination, the Petitioners secured marks of 59, 60, and 65, respectively, after which, the AAI published a list of candidates for document verification with a cut-off score of 59 for the UR category and 66 for the ESM category.
The Petitioners, despite having scored at or above the UR cut-off, were not included in the list for document verification because their scores were below the ESM category’s cut-off. Hence, they assailed their non-inclusion, asserting that their merit entitled them to ‘migrate’ to the unreserved category and be called for document verification.
Appearances:
Advocates Ramesh Chandra Singh and Prakriti Roy, for the Petitioner
Advocates Amit Bardhan Mohanty, Dr. Neelankshi Choudhary, Raveesh Kumar Tripathi, Y.S. Choudhary, Pratima N. Lakra, Shailendra Kumar Mishra, Mansi Aggarwal, and Chanakya, for the Respondent
