Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Reserved Category Candidates in Government Jobs
In a significant judgment that clarifies the complex rules governing recruitment of reserved category candidates in government services, the Supreme Court has delivered two important rulings that will impact thousands of job aspirants across India. The cases involved crucial questions about when reserved category candidates can be appointed against unreserved vacancies and what types of relaxations disqualify them from such migration.
The legal battles stemmed from recruitment processes in the Railway Protection Force and Central Industrial Security Force, where candidates from Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes who had availed certain relaxations scored higher marks than the last selected general category candidate but were denied appointment in unreserved vacancies.
The Railway Protection Force Case
The first case involved the Railway Protection Force’s 2013 recruitment for 763 posts in various ancillary services like Constable (Water Carrier), Constable (Safaiwala), and other trades. The employment notification provided upper age relaxation of 5 years for SC/ST candidates and 3 years for OBC candidates, along with concessions in physical measurements. However, Clause 4(d)(v) specifically stated: “No age relaxation is allowed to SC/ST/OBC candidates applying against unreserved vacancies.”
Several reserved category candidates who had availed these relaxations but scored higher marks than the cut-off for unreserved seats approached the High Court, which directed their appointment in unreserved vacancies. The Railway Protection Force appealed this decision to the Supreme Court.
The central legal question revolved around which set of rules governed the recruitment process. The appellants argued that Revised Directive No.29 dated 06.12.2013 made Standing Order No.85 applicable, which contained a specific embargo. Para 14(f) of Standing Order No.85 stated: “Candidates from SC, ST and OBC categories selected purely on merit without availing any relaxation in age, physical measurements and Qualifying Marks in written test shall not be counted against vacancies reserved for such categories.”
On the other hand, the respondents argued that Standing Order No.78 still applied, which permitted migration. Para 14(b) of Standing Order No.78 provided: “Candidates from SC, ST and OBC categories who come into the general merit list by securing higher marks shall be selected against unreserved vacancies.”
The Supreme Court analyzed the Revised Directive No.29, which stated it was issued “in partial modification of Directive No.24… and Standing Order No. 78… and in supersession of Directive-29 dt. 27.09.2013 & its modification dt. 12.11.2013” and that “procedure laid down in Standing Order-85… for recruitment of Constable, shall be applicable with following changes.”
The Court held that “the words ‘partial modification’ used in the Revised Directive must be contextually appreciated to mean that the Standing Order No. 78 prescribing the recruitment process to post of ancillary services shall remain unaltered to the extent it is not in conflict with the procedure prescribed in Standing Order No. 85 applicable to recruitment of Constables.”
The Court further observed that “Para 14(f) of the Standing Order No. 85 states only those candidates in reserved category who have not availed relaxation in age, physical measurements and qualifying marks in written test may be appointed in unreserved category and thereby bars the reserved candidates who have availed such concession from migration to unreserved category. This para runs counter to Para 14(b) of Standing Order No. 78 which permits such migration.”
Citing its earlier judgment in Union of India & Ors. vs. Sajib Roy, the Court summarized the legal position: “Whether a reserved candidate who has availed relaxation in fees/upper age limit to participate in open competition with general candidates may be recruited against unreserved seats would depend on the facts of each case. That is to say, in the event there is no embargo in the recruitment rules/employment notification, such reserved candidates who have scored higher than the last selected unreserved candidate shall be entitled to migrate and be recruited against unreserved seats. However, if an embargo is imposed under relevant recruitment rules, such reserved candidates shall not be permitted to migrate to general category seats.”
Since the Revised Directive No.29 read with Standing Order No.85 imposed such an embargo, the Supreme Court allowed the RPF’s appeal and set aside the High Court’s direction to appoint the reserved category candidates in unreserved vacancies.
The CISF Case
The second case involved the CISF recruitment for Assistant Commandant posts through Limited Department Competitive Examination. Here, a general category candidate who scored 363 marks challenged the appointment of a Scheduled Tribe candidate who scored 366 marks in the general category. The ST candidate had availed relaxation in physical standards – while general category required 165 cm height, ST candidates needed only 162.5 cm, and the selected candidate had 163 cm height.
The appellant relied on Office Memorandum No. 36011/1/98-Estt. (Res), dated 01.07.1998, which stated: “only such SC/ST/OBC candidate who are selected on the same standard as applied to general candidates shall not be adjusted against reserved vacancies. In other words, when a relaxed standard is applied in selecting an SC/ ST/OBC candidate, for example in the age limit, experience qualification, permitted number of chances in written examination, extended zone of consideration larger than what is provided for general category candidate etc., the SC/ST/OBC candidates are to be counted against reserved vacancies.”
The Union Public Service Commission and Union of India opposed this interpretation, arguing that the office memorandum did not apply to physical standards which vary based on gender and ethnic background. The UPSC clarified in its counter affidavit: “These physical / medical standards as provided in the Examination Rules are notified by the Government (Ministry of Home Affairs)… physical standards (height and chest) of woman candidates are lower than the male candidates for different categories… this cannot be considered that the woman candidates would be availing the relaxed physical standards… The similar situation is also applicable to the ST candidates qualifying the Examination on their own merit (taking into account age, cut off marks etc.) with lower physical standards fixed for them.”
The Supreme Court agreed with this interpretation, noting that “office memo dated 01.07.1998 does not expressly state relaxed concessions in physical measurements availed by a reserved candidate would disentitle the candidate from being considered for appointment under general category if he has scored higher than the cut-off marks in such category.”
The Court endorsed the High Court’s reasoning that “there are physical standards, like height, weight etc. which are also known as ‘Enlistment Standards’ and there are other markers of eligibility, which would include age and educational qualifications… The word ‘etc.’ has to be read eiusdem generis. It takes colour from the preceding words which refer to age limit, experience, and qualifications. It does not contemplate physical standards which would vary depending on gender, geographical location, and so on.”
Therefore, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in the CISF case, allowing the ST candidate to retain his appointment in the general category.
Key Legal Principles Established
These twin judgments establish several important principles in service jurisprudence. First, they clarify that the permissibility of reserved category candidates migrating to unreserved vacancies depends entirely on the specific recruitment rules governing each selection process. When rules explicitly bar such migration for candidates availing relaxations, courts cannot override these provisions.
Second, the judgments make a crucial distinction between different types of relaxations. Relaxations in age, educational qualifications, number of attempts, and similar parameters generally disqualify reserved category candidates from unreserved vacancies when the rules so provide. However, relaxations in physical standards that account for genuine physiological variations between genders or ethnic groups do not automatically trigger such disqualification.
Third, the Court emphasized that recruitment rules must be interpreted contextually and as a whole, giving effect to the intention behind each provision rather than applying mechanical interpretations.
These rulings bring much-needed clarity to government recruitment processes and ensure that both reserved category candidates and general category candidates understand their rights and limitations when participating in competitive examinations. The judgments balance the principles of merit-based selection with the social objectives of reservation policies, while respecting the autonomy of recruiting agencies to frame appropriate rules for their specific requirements.
Petitioner Name: Railway Protection Force & Ors..Respondent Name: Prem Chand Kumar & Ors..Judgment By: Justice Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi.Place Of Incident: Not specified.Judgment Date: 09-09-2025.Result: allowed.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: railway-protection-f-vs-prem-chand-kumar-&-o-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-09-09-2025.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Employment Disputes
See all petitions in Recruitment Policies
See all petitions in Public Sector Employees
See all petitions in Promotion Cases
See all petitions in Contractual Employment
See all petitions in Judgment by Surya Kant
See all petitions in Judgment by Joymalya Bagchi
See all petitions in allowed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments
See all posts in Service Matters Category
See all allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Service Matters Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Service Matters Category
