Domicile Relaxation Available To All; Can't Deprive SC Candidate Of Availing Unreserved Vacancy: J&K&L High Court
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has held that a reserved category candidate cannot be denied adjustment against an unreserved vacancy merely because he has availed a relaxation that is available uniformly to all candidates belonging to a particular region.
Drawing a distinction between category-specific and region-specific relaxations, the Court ruled that only a concession flowing from a candidate's reserved category status attracts adjustment against reserved vacancies, whereas a relaxation based solely on domicile cannot operate as a disqualification against open merit selection.
The Court was considering a writ petition filed by four Scheduled Caste candidates challenging the selection list prepared by the Staff Selection Commission for recruitment to the posts of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police Forces and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles. Although the petitioners had secured marks higher than several candidates selected in the unreserved category, they were adjusted against Scheduled Caste vacancies on the ground that they had availed relaxation in height and chest measurements prescribed for residents of the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir.
Allowing the petition, Justice Rajnesh Oswal held that the respondents had misconstrued the recruitment notification by treating a domicile-based physical relaxation as though it were a concession attached to Scheduled Caste status, thereby denying the petitioners the benefit of their superior merit. The Court directed the respondents to appoint the petitioners against available vacancies and, if no vacancies existed, to create supernumerary posts within three months.
Background:
The Staff Selection Commission issued a recruitment notification inviting applications for the posts of Constable (GD) in the Central Armed Police Forces and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles. The notification prescribed reduced height and chest measurements for candidates belonging to certain geographical regions, including the Union Territory of Jammu & Kashmir. These relaxations were available irrespective of whether the candidate belonged to the unreserved or reserved category.
The petitioners, all belonging to the Scheduled Caste category and domiciled in Jammu & Kashmir, successfully cleared the recruitment process and secured marks higher than a number of candidates selected under the unreserved category. However, the respondents adjusted them against Scheduled Caste vacancies by invoking Paragraph 11(xiv) of the recruitment notice, which provides that candidates qualifying by availing relaxed standards reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes or Ex-Servicemen shall be counted against reserved vacancies.
Contending that the only concession availed by them was a domicile-based physical relaxation available equally to general category candidates from Jammu & Kashmir, the petitioners argued that they were entitled to be considered against unreserved vacancies on the strength of their merit.
Court's Observations:
Examining the recruitment notification, the High Court observed that the relaxation in height and chest measurements was not linked to Scheduled Caste status, but was uniformly extended to candidates belonging to specified geographical regions. The Court observed,
"The relaxation granted to the residents of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir applies uniformly across both unreserved and reserved categories. Consequently, the petitioners did not receive any benefit on account of their Scheduled Caste status, but rather on account of their domicile."
Interpreting Paragraphs 11(xiii) and 11(xiv) of the recruitment notice together, Justice Oswal held that only those candidates who avail relaxations specifically attached to their reserved category lose the benefit of migration to the unreserved category. Candidates selected on their own merit without availing such category-specific concessions are required to be accommodated against open merit vacancies.
The Court held,
"A conjoint reading of Paragraphs 11(xiii) and 11(xiv) of the Notice reveals that if candidates belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST), Other Backward Class (OBC), or Ex-Servicemen categories are selected on their own merit, without availing themselves of relaxed standards reserved exclusively for those categories, they must be accommodated against unreserved vacancies."
The respondents had relied upon the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India v. Sajib Roy to contend that once relaxed standards had been availed, the petitioners were liable to be adjusted against reserved vacancies. Rejecting the contention, the Court held that Sajib Roy concerned an age relaxation available exclusively to OBC candidates, whereas the present case involved a concession based solely on regional domicile.
Distinguishing the decision, the Court observed,
"The reliance placed by the respondents upon the judgment in Union of India v. Sajib Roy is misplaced, as the relaxation availed by the petitioners is not relatable to their Scheduled Caste status but to their domicile."
The Court further held that the respondents' interpretation produced an anomalous consequence whereby the petitioners' Scheduled Caste status itself became a disadvantage despite their superior merit. Justice Oswal remarked,
"The petitioners have not been granted the benefit of relaxation in height and chest measurements on account of their SC category status. As such, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners' SC status has resulted in a distinct disadvantage to them. The distinction drawn by the official respondents... is discriminatory and directly contravenes Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India."
Holding that the petitioners had been illegally deprived of appointment against unreserved vacancies despite securing higher merit, the High Court allowed the writ petition. While declining to disturb appointments already made nearly five years earlier, the Court directed the respondents to appoint the petitioners against available vacancies or, if none existed, by creating supernumerary posts within three months.
Case Title: Amit Kundal & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (JKL) 316