Reservation in India has been a cornerstone of social justice, ensuring opportunities in education and employment for historically marginalised communities. However, its interplay with merit-based general category recruitment has often generated controversy. A recurring legal issue is whether a candidate belonging to a reserved category who avails certain relaxations (such as age or physical standards) can still be considered under the general category if they score higher than the last selected general candidate.
The Supreme Court of India in Railway Protection Force & Ors. v. Prem Chand Kumar & Ors. (2025 INSC 1083) recently examined this issue and clarified the law. The Court reiterated that reserved candidates can be considered in the general category if recruitment rules do not explicitly bar such migration. However, when rules impose an embargo, availing relaxations prevents such candidates from being considered under the unreserved quota.
This article analyses the judgment in detail, explores the broader constitutional and administrative framework, examines relevant precedents, and evaluates the implications for recruitment policies in India.
Background of the Case
Employment Notification and Recruitment Process
- In 2013, the Railway Protection Force (RPF) issued Employment Notice No. 1/2013 to fill 659 posts (later increased to 763) across various ancillary positions such as Constable (Water Carrier), Constable (Safaiwala), Constable (Washerman), Constable (Barber), Constable (Mali), Constable (Tailor), and Constable (Cobbler).
- Age limit: 18–25 years (with relaxations of 5 years for SC/ST and 3 years for OBC).
- Physical measurement standards were prescribed, with relaxed criteria for reserved category candidates.
Selection stages included:
- Written Examination (cut-off: 35% for General, 30% for SC/ST)
- Physical Efficiency Test (PET)
- Physical Measurement Test (PMT)
- Trade Test (50% qualifying marks).
Dispute
Some reserved category candidates (SC/ST) who availed relaxations in age or physical standards scored higher than the general category cut-off. However, they were denied consideration for general category posts. They approached the High Court, which directed that they be appointed against unreserved vacancies, relying on Standing Order No. 78 (2008), which permitted migration of reserved candidates to the general category if they scored higher
The RPF appealed, citing Standing Order No. 85 (2009), reinforced by Revised Directive No. 29 (2013), which barred reserved candidates who availed of relaxations from being considered in the general category.
Issue Before the Court
The Supreme Court framed the central issue:
- Can reserved category candidates who availed relaxations in age or physical measurements but scored above the general category cut-off be considered for appointment under unreserved vacancies?
Supreme Court’s Analysis
Standing Orders and Revised Directive
Standing Order No. 78 (2008): Allowed migration of SC/ST/OBC candidates to unreserved posts if they scored higher marks, irrespective of relaxations.
Standing Order No. 85 (2009): Restricted such migration; only candidates who did not avail any relaxation could be counted under unreserved seats.
Revised Directive No. 29 (2013): Applied Standing Order 85 to ancillary posts, partially modifying Standing Order 78.
The Court held that Standing Order 85 prevailed over Standing Order 78 due to the later directive, thereby barring reserved candidates who availed of relaxations from competing for unreserved seats.
Principle of Law Laid Down
The Court relied on Union of India v. Sajib Roy (2019) and earlier precedents to summarise the principle:
- If recruitment rules impose no embargo, reserved candidates availing relaxations but scoring higher than general cut-offs can be appointed under general category.
- If rules explicitly bar such migration, availing relaxations (like age/physical standards/qualifying marks) disqualifies them from consideration under unreserved seats.
Distinction Between Age/Educational Relaxations and Physical Standards
In the connected appeal (RPF v. Prem Chand Kumar and another case involving CISF recruitment), the Court distinguished between relaxations in age/education and physical standards.
- OM 1998 and 2018 (DoPT): Clarified that relaxations like age limit, educational qualifications, or exam attempts prevent migration.
- Physical standards (height/weight): Court held these are contextual (varying by gender, race, geography) and not absolute relaxations. Thus, availing them does not automatically bar migration.
Relevant Precedents Considered
Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC 119
Held: Reserved category candidates who qualify on merit (without relaxation) must be considered under general seats.
Deepa E.V. v. Union of India (2017) 12 SCC 680
Held: Candidates availing age relaxation cannot migrate to the general category.
Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujarat PSC (2019) 7 SCC 383
Reaffirmed that availing age relaxation bars migration to the unreserved quota.
Pradeep Kumar v. Govt. (NCT of Delhi) (2019) 10 SCC 120
Followed the same principle.
Union of India v. Sajib Roy (2019)
Laid down the controlling test: migration is permissible only if rules/notifications do not impose restrictions.
Constitutional and Policy Considerations
Article 14 – Equality
The Court balanced meritocracy with affirmative action. While equality demands that merit should not be compromised, the Constitution allows protective discrimination for disadvantaged groups. The bar against migration when relaxations are availed ensures that level-playing competition in the general category remains intact.
Article 16(4) – Reservation in Public Employment
Reservations are meant to provide additional opportunities, not to dilute general category standards. Thus, the bar ensures the sanctity of “open competition” seats while still safeguarding reserved quotas.
Administrative Fairness
Allowing candidates who availed of relaxations to occupy unreserved posts could unfairly disadvantage genuinely eligible general candidates. On the other hand, where relaxations are contextual (like physical standards for women or ST candidates), strict disqualification may result in unfair exclusion.
The Court’s nuanced approach upholds administrative fairness.
Implications of the Judgment
- Clarity in Recruitment Rules: The decision emphasises that recruitment authorities must clearly state whether migration is barred when relaxations are availed. Ambiguity leads to litigation.
- Merit-Based Balance: Ensures that reserved candidates who succeed without availing relaxations are rewarded purely on merit and do not eat into reserved quotas.
- Contextual Exceptions for Physical Standards: The Court rightly distinguished physical relaxations (gender/ethnicity-based) from academic/age relaxations, preventing unfair exclusion.
- Impact on Future Recruitment Drives: Government agencies like UPSC, SSC, Railways, and paramilitary forces must reframe notifications with precision.
- Protection of Reserved Seats: Migration is permissible only when it does not compromise the reserved quota framework or undermine the general merit competition.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court in Railway Protection Force & Ors. v. Prem Chand Kumar & Ors. reaffirmed a critical principle of service jurisprudence:
- Reserved category candidates can be appointed under the general category if they score higher than general cut-offs, but only when recruitment rules do not bar such migration.
- Availing of relaxations like age or educational concessions disqualifies them from migration.
- Relaxations in physical standards (like height/weight), being contextual, do not automatically disqualify migration.
This nuanced ruling balances meritocracy, reservation policy, and fairness in recruitment. It underscores that reservation is a tool of inclusion, not a backdoor entry into the general merit pool. Recruitment authorities must now ensure clarity and consistency in framing rules to prevent ambiguity and litigation.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams