Supreme Court ruled that reserved category candidates availing age relaxation cannot migrate to general category seats if recruitment rules explicitly prohibit such migration.
Case in NewsReserved candidates barred from migrating to general seats rules Supreme Court in SSC constable recruitment case . |
Discover powerful Latin Maxims and simplify complex legal terms in seconds.
Case Overview
Case Name: Union Of India & Ors. vs. Sajib Roy
The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment authored by Justice Joymalya Bagchi and concurred by Justice Surya Kant examined whether candidates belonging to reserved categories, who availed age relaxation, could later claim appointment against general category seats . The dispute arose from a Staff Selection Commission (SSC) recruitment for Constable (GD) posts where the respondents belonging to OBC category, applied with age relaxation benefits .
Step into the world of justice with Courtroom Chronicles.
Key Aspects
The case involved significant issues relating to reservation, age relaxation and merit-based migration to general category seats . The following facts and issues emerged before the Court :
- The age limit for the exam was 18–23 years with a three-year OBC relaxation .
- Respondents applied as OBC candidates, using the relaxation and scored above the last selected general candidate .
- Despite higher marks, they were ranked below the last selected OBC candidate .
- They sought migration to unreserved seats based on merit .
- The High Court permitted such migration relying on Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of UP (2010) .
Legal Insights
The Court emphasized that the principle of migration to unreserved category seats depends on statutory rules and whether concessions were availed . The judgment referred to prior precedents and relevant provisions :
- Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution of India ensure equality of opportunity, with special provisions for reserved categories .
- Migration is allowed when no relaxation in upper age/fees is taken and no embargo exists under recruitment rules .
- Reference to Saurav Yadav vs. State of UP (2020) clarified that merit-based migration is possible only in absence of special concessions .
- In this case, the Office Memorandum (DoPT guidelines) expressly barred migration after availing age relaxation .
- The High Court wrongly relied on Jitendra Kumar Singh (2010) which was based on a different statutory framework .
Court’s Verdict
The Supreme Court of India set aside the High Court’s order, holding that candidates who availed relaxation cannot be considered for general category vacancies when rules impose a bar . The appeal filed by the Union of India was accordingly allowed .
Source – Supreme Court of India
Read also – Constitution of India
The LawGist ensures exam success with quality notes—TPL, Current Affairs, Recent Judgments, and more. Backed by trusted resources and videos, The LawGist is every aspirant’s first choice. Discover more at thelawgist.org.
