The Supreme Court has allowed the appeals filed by the Airport Authority of India (AAI) and set aside the judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Kerala High Court which had directed appointment of the writ petitioner to the post of Junior Assistant (Fire Service) and mandated reworking of the entire selection by applying the reservation roster. The Court held that candidates belonging to reserved categories who secure selection on their own merit, without availing any concession or relaxation, are entitled to be appointed against unreserved posts, and such appointments do not violate reservation norms.
The dispute arose from Advertisement No. 01/SR/2013 issued by AAI for recruitment to 245 posts of Junior Assistant (Fire Service), of which 122 were unreserved, 78 OBC, 22 SC, and 23 ST (including a carried-forward vacancy). After completion of the selection process, 158 candidates were appointed based strictly on merit, including several reserved-category candidates who had scored higher marks than general category candidates and were thus adjusted against unreserved posts. The writ petitioner, who belonged to the unreserved category and was placed lower in merit, challenged his non-selection before the Kerala High Court, alleging improper application of the reservation roster.
The Single Judge allowed the writ petition on January 31, 2018, holding that the roster had not been properly applied and directed preparation and publication of a fresh rank list in accordance with the DoPT Office Memorandum dated July 2, 1997. The Division Bench, by judgment dated February 19, 2020, substantially upheld this view and directed appointment of the writ petitioner to a vacancy kept unfilled, while also issuing directions for future compliance with the roster.
While considering the appeals, the Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, examined the entire selection process and the legal principles governing reservation and merit. The Court held that the reservation roster is a post-based administrative tool, meant to monitor cadre strength and future vacancies, and cannot be applied to displace candidates who secure selection on merit. The Court reiterated that the “open” or “unreserved” category is not a separate quota but is open to all candidates, irrespective of caste or category, provided they qualify on merit.
The Court further clarified that adjustment of meritorious reserved-category candidates against unreserved posts is not “migration” in the pejorative sense, but a constitutional requirement flowing from Articles 14 and 16. Since all 122 unreserved posts had been filled strictly on merit, and no reserved candidate had availed any relaxation, the High Court’s directions were held to be legally unsustainable.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Kerala High Court, held that no direction for appointment of the writ petitioner could be issued, allowed the appeal filed by AAI, and dismissed the appeal filed by the impleaded candidate. No order as to costs was passed.
Appearance:
For Petitioner(s): AOR A. Karthik, A.S.G. Aishwarya Bhati, and Advocate M Neetica Sharma, Tavinder Sidhu, M/S. M. V. Kini & Associates.
For Respondent(s): A.S.G. Aishwarya Bhati, with AOR A. Karthik, M. V. Kini & Associates, and Advocate Govind Manoharan, Smrithi Suresh, Sugam Agrawal, Veera Mahuli, Nanditha S, Neetica Sharma, Tavinder Sidhu.
