Reserved candidates can't be considered later against general category if embargo imposed: SC

Reserved category candidates availing of age relaxation to apply under the reserved category cannot be later considered for selection against general category vacancies, if the recruitment rules explicitly prohibited such migration, the Supreme Court said on Tuesday.

A Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, however, said, “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.

The Bench set aside a high court order in view of the fact that an Office Memorandum dated July, 1, 1998 specifically said that SC/ST/OBC candidates who have availed relaxations in age limit, experience qualification or number of chances in written examinations would be deemed unavailable for consideration against the unreserved vacancies.

The top court clarified that the eligibility and appointment process was governed strictly by the stipulations in the employment notification and applicable service rules.

"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," it said.

The case related to the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) recruitment for constables, where the age limit was 18-23 years with a three-year relaxation for OBC candidates. Respondents Sanjib Roy and others applied as OBC candidates, using this relaxation to qualify. Despite scoring higher than the last selected general category candidate, they were not appointed as they ranked lower than the last selected OBC candidate.

The Centre moved the top court after the high court concerned ruled that these candidates should be considered for unreserved seats based on merit.

The top court reversed the high court’s verdict, saying it wrongly relied on Jitendra Kumar Singh versus State of UP (2010) ruling. The Jitendra Kumar Singh verdict was based on a specific UP statutory framework that allowed such migration, whereas in the present case, the Office Memorandum expressly barred candidates availing of age relaxation from being considered for unreserved vacancies.