Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi on Tuesday (January 6) allowed the Union of India’s appeal and declined to consider a Scheduled Caste category candidate for an unreserved Indian Forest Service cadre vacancy after he had qualified the preliminary examination by availing the relaxed cut-off meant for reserved categories. The dispute arose over allocation of the Karnataka general-insider vacancy, which went to a general-category candidate, while the reserved-category candidate, despite a higher final merit position, sought placement in the unreserved slot. The Bench said that where a reserved-category candidate has taken relaxation at any stage of the examination, the candidate cannot be considered for unreserved vacancies, set aside the Karnataka High Court’s direction, and upheld the existing cadre allocation notification.

The dispute arose from the cadre allocation process following the Indian Forest Service Examination, 2013. A reserved category candidate qualified for the Main Examination by availing a relaxed cut-off applicable at the Preliminary Examination stage, while a general category candidate qualified by meeting the general cut-off. Upon completion of the Main Examination and personality test, the reserved category candidate secured a higher rank in the final merit list.

Also Read: Supreme Court Restores CISF Constable’s Dismissal For Second Marriage Under CISF Rules, 2001

During cadre allocation, only two vacancies were available in the concerned State—one General Insider vacancy and one reserved category vacancy. The General Insider vacancy was allotted to the general category candidate, while the reserved category candidate was allotted a cadre in another State due to the absence of a reserved insider vacancy. The reserved category candidate challenged this allocation before the Central Administrative Tribunal, contending that higher merit in the final selection entitled him to the General Insider vacancy.

The Tribunal allowed the application, holding that availing relaxation at the Preliminary Examination stage could not disentitle a candidate from general cadre allocation. This view was affirmed by the High Court, which treated the Preliminary Examination as a mere screening test. The Union of India and the general category candidate challenged these decisions before the Supreme Court, contending that the applicable examination rules and cadre allocation policy barred adjustment against unreserved vacancies where any relaxation had been availed at any stage of the examination.

The Court examined the structure of the Indian Forest Service Examination and noted that “the IFS Examination consists of two tiers – first tier is Preliminary Examination followed by tier two involving Main Examination (Written) and Interview.” It observed that qualification in the Preliminary Examination is a mandatory gateway to participation in the subsequent stages.

Interpreting Rule 14 of the Examination Rules, the Court recorded that “the proviso makes it clear that the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes who have been recommended without resorting to any relaxations or concessions in the eligibility or selection criteria at any stage of the examination may be adjusted against the vacancies of unreserved category.” The use of the expression “any stage of the examination” was held to be significant.

The Court rejected the view that relaxation at the Preliminary Examination stage becomes irrelevant once merit is established at later stages, observing that “even though the Preliminary Examination is merely a screening test, it is an integral stage of the examination and relaxation availed at this stage cannot escape the proviso to Rule 14(ii).”

On the interpretation adopted by the High Court, the Court stated that “the High Court lost sight of the mandate of Rule 1 and the intent of Rule 13 and Rule 14 while equating ‘general standards’ only with performance in the Main Examination.” It further recorded that “a candidate who could not have entered the Main Examination without availing relaxation cannot subsequently claim to have been selected on general standard.”

The Court relied on earlier decisions to record that “once relaxation has been taken by a reserved category candidate at any stage, such candidate is not eligible to be adjusted against unreserved vacancies.” Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the reserved category candidate was ineligible for allocation against the General Insider vacancy.

Also Read: Class-III Judicial Employees Who Completed Computer Training Between 2006–2014 Gain Accrued Right To One Advance Increment: MP High Court

The Court directed that “the appeals are allowed” and that “the impugned final judgment and order dated 06.08.2019 passed by the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 54254 of 2016 (S-CAT) connected with Writ Petition No. 18947 of 2016 (S-CAT), affirming the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench dated 15.03.2016 in O.A. No. 170/00239/2015, are hereby set aside.”

“The notification dated 13.03.2015 issued by the MoEFCC insofar allocating the Karnataka Cadre to Respondent No. 3 and Tamil Nadu Cadre to Respondent No. 1 is upheld as correct in eyes of law and without any alteration. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of and there shall be no order as to costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Pai, AOR Mr. Aditya Bhat, Adv. Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. T. Dutta, Adv. Mr. K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. Devashish Bharukha, Sr. Adv. Ms. Satvika Thakur, Adv. Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Adv. Mr. Rohan Gupta, Adv. Mr. Apoorv Kurup, Adv.

For the Respondents: Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vinodh Kanna B, Adv. Mr. Abhilash M R, Adv. Ms. Thilagavathi P, Adv. M/s M R Law Associates, AOR Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, AOR Mr. Dhruv Joshi, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv. Mr. Amit Pai, AOR Mr. Aditya Bhat, Adv. Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. T. Dutta, Adv.

Case Title: Union of India v. G. Kiran & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 4743 of 2020 and 4067 of 2022
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari, Justice Vijay Bishnoi