Reserved Category Candidate Scoring Higher Than General Category Cut-Off Must Be Placed In Open Post; Supreme Court
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma set aside the Kerala High Court’s directions in a dispute over recruitment to Junior Assistant (Fire Service) posts by a statutory authority, holding that a reserved-category candidate who scores above the General Category cut-off must be treated as selected against an open, unreserved vacancy. The challenge came from an unsuccessful applicant who alleged faulty preparation of the select list and roster application after reserved-category candidates were placed in the unreserved list and several notified posts were left vacant. Allowing the authority’s appeal, the Court found that unreserved posts had been filled on merit without any relaxation and held that no direction to appoint the petitioner could follow.
The dispute arose from a recruitment process initiated by a statutory authority in 2013 for appointment to junior-level posts, with vacancies notified across unreserved and reserved categories. A written examination, followed by physical tests, interview, and driving tests, was conducted. After completion of the process, appointments were made to fewer posts than those advertised.
An unsuccessful candidate challenged the selection before the High Court, alleging improper application of reservation norms and contending that reserved category candidates were wrongly adjusted against unreserved vacancies. Information obtained under the Right to Information Act revealed category-wise appointments and vacancies remaining unfilled.
The Single Judge allowed the challenge and directed preparation of a fresh rank list and rearrangement of candidates as per the reservation roster. The Division Bench partly affirmed the findings and directed appointment of the writ petitioner against a vacancy kept unfilled. The statutory authority and an impleaded candidate thereafter approached the Supreme Court challenging these directions.
The Court recorded that "The facts of the case further makes it clear that all the vacancies notified for unreserved category i.e. 122 posts were filled up based upon the marks scored by candidates in the process of selection on their own merit and, therefore, the Appellant Authority were justified in migrating the candidates belonging to reserve category to the unreserved list on the basis of their own merit as they have scored higher marks than the General category candidates"
The Bench noted that the authority had prepared the unreserved list by including candidates from reserved categories who “have not availed the concession or any relaxation of their own category reservation and who have scored higher marks or marks at par with the candidates belonging to unreserved category candidates.”
On the role of the roster, the Court stated that “the reservation roster comes into picture only after selection process is over and a reservation register or roster is a list of employees of a cadre, who are on the payroll of the organization after joining their duty.” It further observed that "the reservation roster is not used to make selections during the recruitment process, but only to define number of vacant posts for advertising for recruitment. However, since reservation register or roster defines the quota available for recruitment, it can be used to decide who deserves selection and who does not deserve selection on account of a concerned category quota being filled by more meritorious candidates in the category available for the concerned candidate."
The Bench found fault with the High Court’s approach, observing that “the Division Bench of the High Court has not considered the said Office Memorandum in its right perspective.”
Reiterating settled law, the Court recorded that “a candidate belonging to reserve category who has scored marks higher than the cut off marks for the General Category is to be treated as having qualified against an open or unreserved vacant post.” It clarified that no concession or relaxation had been extended to such candidates in the present recruitment.
The Court concluded that “all the vacancies notified for unreserved category i.e. 122 posts were filled up based upon the marks scored by candidates in the process of selection on their own merit.”
The Court directed that “the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court deserves to be set aside and are accordingly set aside.”
“The question of directing appointment of Respondent No. 1 or any other person belonging to unreserved category does not arise as all vacancies notified under the unreserved category have been filled strictly in accordance with the merit list prepared by the Appellant Authority.”
Accordingly, “the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 is allowed and the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 12937 of 2021 is dismissed.” No order as to costs was made.
Case Title: Airport Authority of India & Ors. v. Sham Krishna B & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 69
Case Numbers: SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020; SLP (C) No. 12937 of 2021
Bench: Justice M. M. Sundresh, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
