Relaxation at any stage bars migration to general category: Punjab and Haryana High Court
Dismissing the writ petition, the court rules that once relaxation is taken ‘at any stage of the examination’, the candidate must be treated against reserved vacancies alone and cannot claim adjustment against unreserved posts
Justice Harpreet Singh Brar of the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a reserved category candidate who avails relaxation at any stage of a multi-tier selection process cannot subsequently seek migration to the general category on the basis of performance in later stages.
Dismissing the writ petition, the court ruled that once relaxation is taken “at any stage of the examination”, the candidate must be treated against reserved vacancies alone and cannot claim adjustment against unreserved posts.
The principal question before the court was whether a candidate who secured marks below the general category cut-off in the screening test, but qualified under the relaxed standard applicable to his category, could later be migrated to the general category after clearing subsequent stages.
The ruling by Justice Brar came in the case of a candidate, who had applied for Assistant Environmental Engineer (Group-B) in Haryana Pollution Control Board.
Justice Brar held that the general category cut-off in the screening test held on November 2, 2025, was 61.8132, whereas the candidate had secured 56.86 marks and was shortlisted only under the BC-B category by availing the relaxed cut-off.
Justice Brar observed that a screening test placed at the threshold of a multi-stage process operates as “a mandatory eligibility sieve, and not a mere formality”. Any relaxation at that stage “directly confers a tangible and decisive advantage” as it enables a candidate to cross the threshold and proceed further.
Rejecting the contention that the screening test was inconsequential because its marks were not carried forward, the court termed such an argument “fundamentally misconceived”.
Relying upon the recent Supreme Court judgment in "Union of India v. G. Kiran & Ors", decided on January 6, the court referred to the authoritative position that the expression “any relaxation at any stage of examination” included relaxation in eligibility or selection criteria at any stage.
Quoting from the ruling, the High Court observed: “The natural corollary makes it clear that those reserved category candidates who have availed of any relaxation or concession at ‘any stage of the examination’ are not eligible to be adjusted against unreserved vacancies.”
The Supreme Court had further clarified that once relaxation is taken at the preliminary stage, the candidate cannot later claim selection on “General Standard” merely because performance in subsequent stages surpassed the general benchmark.
The High Court also referred to another case, where it was held that when a relaxed standard is applied in selecting a reserved category candidate — whether in age, qualification or other criteria — such candidate “shall have to be considered only against his/her reserved post” and would be “deemed as unavailable for consideration against unreserved post”.
Distinguishing earlier precedents permitting migration, the court recorded that those cases applied only where candidates had not availed any relaxation at any stage.
Justice Brar held that the advertisement issued in the matter itself stipulated that when a relaxed standard is applied, such candidates would be counted against reserved vacancies and deemed unavailable for unreserved posts.
The petition was also found barred on the principle that a candidate who participates in the selection process without protest and is unsuccessful cannot later challenge it. Citing another judgment, the court observed that such conduct “clearly disentitles” a candidate from questioning the process after failing to secure selection.
Summarising the legal position, Justice Brar held that relaxation in qualifying marks at the screening stage amounted to relaxation “at any stage of the examination”; that migration was impermissible where relaxed standards were availed; the advertisement conditions had binding force; participation without protest barred challenge; and selection conferred only a right of consideration, not appointment.
Holding that the candidate had availed relaxation at the screening test stage and was rightly treated as a BC-B candidate throughout, the court concluded that he could not claim migration to the general category. The petition was accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
