Reserved Category Candidate Who Availed Relaxation In Prelims Can't Seek Unreserved Seat Based On Final Rank : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (January 6) refused to consider the appointment of a Schedule Caste category candidate in the unreserved cadre of the Indian Forest Service because the candidate had availed relaxation at the stage of preliminary examination.

“once relaxation has been taken by a reserved category candidate, they cannot be considered for unreserved vacancies.”, observed a bench of Justices JK Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi, while allowing the Union of India's plea against the Karnataka High Court's decision which had allowed the appointment of the Respondent-SC category candidate to the unreserved category merely because he had secured higher final rank than the General category candidate, while ignoring the fact that the Respondent had availed the relaxation.

The dispute arose from the 2013 IFS examination, conducted in two stages, the Preliminary Examination and the Main Examination with an interview. In the prelims, the general cut-off was 267 marks, while the relaxed cut-off for SC candidates was 233. G. Kiran (SC) qualified with 247.18 marks by availing the relaxed cut-off, whereas Antony S. Mariyappa (General) qualified on the general cut-off with 270.68 marks. However, in the final merit list, Kiran ranked 19, and Antony ranked 37. However, during cadre allocation, Karnataka had only one General Insider vacancy and no SC Insider vacancy. The Union allotted the General Insider post to Antony and allocated Kiran to the Tamil Nadu cadre. Kiran challenged this before the CAT and the Karnataka High Court, both of which ruled in his favour on the ground that he had secured a higher final rank.

Setting aside the impugned decisions, the judgment authored by Justice Maheshwari observed that since the IFS examination is a single, integrated selection process comprising two mandatory stages, which means qualifying the Preliminary Examination is a prerequisite for entry into the Main Examination, and therefore, any relaxation availed at the preliminary stage cannot be ignored at later stages.

Interpreting Rule 14(ii) of the IFS Examination Rules, 2013, the Court emphasised the proviso which states that reserved category candidates who are recommended “without resorting to any relaxations or concessions at any stage of the examination” alone can be considered against unreserved vacancies.

Since the Respondent had availed the relaxations in the preliminary examination, therefore even after securing higher rank than the general category candidate in the final round would not entitle him to claim appointment in the unreserved category, the Court said citing Union of India v. Sajib Roy, 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 881 which hold that once a reserved category candidate avails any concession, whether in age, cut-off, or otherwise, they cannot migrate to an unreserved vacancy unless the rules expressly permit such migration.

“After availing the benefit of this relaxation for admission to the Main Examination, Respondent No. 1 cannot subsequently claim to have been selected on "General Standard" merely due to his performance in the subsequent stages 34 surpassed the general standard. Therefore, if a candidate who has resorted a relaxation at any stage of examination, would not fall within the purview of the proviso to Rule 14(ii) of the Exam Rules, 2013 and in that situation, for the purpose of the applicable Policy for cadre allocation, he would not fall within the list of candidates selected on 'General Standard' claiming General Insider vacancy of home state cadre as insider candidate.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed.

Cause Title: UNION OF INDIA versus G. KIRAN & ORS. (and connected matter)

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 8

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Pai, AOR Mr. Aditya Bhat, Adv. Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. T. Dutta, Adv. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Devashish Bharukha, Sr. Adv. Ms. Satvika Thakur, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv. Mr. Rohan Gupta, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vinodh Kanna B, Adv. Mr. Abhilash M R, Adv. Ms. Thilagavathi P, Adv. M/s M R Law Associates, AOR Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, AOR Mr. Dhruv Joshi, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Pai, AOR Mr. Aditya Bhat, Adv. Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. T. Dutta, Adv.