Reserved Category Candidate Scoring Higher Than General Category Cut Off Must Be Included In Open Post : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court recently observed that a reserved-category candidate who scores higher than the cut-off marks for General Category shall be eligible to hold an unreserved vacant post.

"It is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate belonging to reserve category who has scored marks higher than the cut off marks for the General Category is to be treated as having qualified against an open or unreserved vacant post" a bench of Justices MM Sundresh and SC Sharma said.

In the facts of the case, the Court noted that no concession or relaxation was extended to the reserve category candidates. They were appointed against posts earmarked for General Category candidates on the basis of merit as they scored more marks.

"The facts of the case further makes it clear that all the vacancies notified for unreserved category i.e. 122 posts were filled up based upon the marks scored by candidates in the process of selection on their own merit and, therefore, the Appellant Authority were justified in migrating the candidates belonging to reserve category to the unreserved list on the basis of their own merit as they have scored higher marks than the General category candidates", the Court observed.

The Court was dealing with a case pertaining to appointments to the post of Junior Assistant (Fire Service) in the Airport Authority of India. Out of a total of 245 posts notified, 122 were earmarked for unreserved, 78 for OBC, 22 for Scheduled Castes and 23 for Scheduled Tribes. 1 was a carried forward vacancy. On completion of the selection process, 185 candidates qualified. Initially, 158 were selected and the remaining 27 put on a panel.

Respondent No.1 was successful at all stages of the process but did not figure in the final list of selected candidates. When he sought information from AAI, it was revealed that 122 candidates were selected under the general category, 10 under OBC, 22 under SC and 4 under ST category.

Respondent No.1 was 10th on the list of candidates not selected in the unreserved category and his merit position was 132.

Aggrieved inter-alia by the inclusion of reserved category candidates in the unreserved category, he approached the High Court. A Single Judge ruled in his favor, finding that the appointments were vitiated because only 158 candidates were appointed against 245 notified posts, and the reservation policy had not been correctly applied.

The AAI was directed to re-arrange candidates in conformity with the model roster contained in the 1997 DoPT Office Memorandum, after which appointments were to be made to the remaining notified posts.

In AAI's appeal, a Division Bench upheld the Single Judge's findings. However, it modified the relief and declined to disturb the entire selection exercise where no other appointee had challenged his or her appointment.

The Division Bench directed that respondent No.1 be appointed to the vacancy that had been kept vacant by the Single Judge and ordered AAI to publish rank lists forthwith and to ensure that future roster points are filled in accordance with the 1997 DoPT Office Memorandum. The Bench made it clear that those who had not challenged the selection or the denial of appointment were not entitled to relief.

Aggrieved, AAI preferred the present case before Supreme Court.

The top Court cited Rajasthan High Court v. Rajat Yadav, where the Court held that a candidate belonging to reserve category who has scored higher marks than the cut off marks for the General Category candidates has to be treated as having qualified against an open unreserved vacant post.

Going through the material, it opined that the High Court did not consider the DoPT Office Memorandum in the right perspective. Further, the High Court failed to consider that the reservation roster comes into picture only after selection process is over and a reservation register or roster is a list of employees of a cadre, who are on the payroll of the organization after joining their duty.

"the reservation roster is not used to make selections during the recruitment process, but only to define number of vacant posts for advertising for recruitment. However, since reservation register or roster defines the quota available for recruitment, it can be used to decide who deserves selection and who does not deserve selection on account of a concerned category quota being filled by more meritorious candidates in the category available for the concerned candidate."

Accordingly, the Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and declined to pass any direction for appointment of respondent No.1 or any unreserved category candidate.

Case Title: AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ORS. v. SHAM KRISHNA B & ORS., SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 63

Click here to read the judgment