Supreme Court Clarifies Migration to Unreserved Posts | Relaxations in Age Barred Under RPF Standing Orders, Physical Standards Not a Disqualification in CISF Recruitment
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court of India Division Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi held that reserved category candidates who avail relaxations in age or physical measurements during recruitment cannot be appointed against unreserved vacancies where the governing rules impose a clear bar. Setting aside a High Court directive in the Railway Protection Force recruitment process, the Court ruled that Standing Order No. 85, read with Revised Directive No. 29, prevents such migration to general seats. At the same time, the Court clarified that unless recruitment rules expressly prohibit, a reserved category candidate who avails relaxation in physical standards such as height or weight can still be considered for appointment against an unreserved post if selected on merit, as upheld in the Central Industrial Security Force selection process.
The appeals arose out of recruitment processes in two distinct services—Railway Protection Force (RPF) ancillary posts and Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) Assistant Commandant (Executive) posts.
In the first case, the RPF Board issued Employment Notice No. 1/2013 dated 06.12.2013 for 659 posts in seven ancillary categories, later enhanced to 763. Eligibility criteria included age between 18 and 25 years, with relaxations of five years for Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes and three years for Other Backward Classes. Relaxations in physical measurements were also available to SC/ST and OBC candidates. The recruitment procedure comprised written examination, physical efficiency test, physical measurement test, and trade test. Reserved category candidates were subject to lower cut-offs in the written test.
Several reserved category applicants, who had availed such concessions, later secured marks above the general category cut-off. However, they were not empanelled due to failing trade tests, non-availability of vacancies in their trade, or inability to meet general cut-offs. Subsequently, they approached the High Court seeking mandamus to appoint them against unfilled posts. The High Court directed that such candidates be considered against unreserved vacancies, relying on Standing Order No. 78 of 2008 which permitted migration of reserved category candidates to general seats if they secured higher merit.
The RPF challenged this, citing Standing Order No. 85 of 2009, read with Revised Directive No. 29 of 2013, which applied to ancillary posts. Under para 14(f) of Standing Order No. 85, candidates from SC/ST/OBC categories who availed relaxations in age, physical measurements, or qualifying marks could not be counted against unreserved vacancies. The respondents argued that Standing Order No. 78, which allowed such migration, continued to apply.
In the second case, the Union of India issued Notification No. 45013/9/2009-Pers.I dated 06.12.2017 for recruitment of CISF Assistant Commandant (Executive) through Limited Departmental Competitive Examination. A general category candidate secured 363 marks, one below the general cut-off of 364, and challenged the appointment of a Scheduled Tribe candidate who scored 366 and was placed in the general category despite availing relaxed height requirements. The appellant contended that as per Office Memorandum dated 01.07.1998 and reiterated in 2018, reserved candidates selected on relaxed standards should be counted against reserved posts. The UPSC and Union of India responded that concessions in physical standards such as height or weight are prescribed by the Government and do not constitute “relaxed standards” under the memorandum, which relates to age, qualifications, and experience.
The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that physical measurement variations did not fall within the scope of relaxed standards envisaged in the Office Memoranda.
On the RPF matter, it recorded: “Para 14(f) of the Standing Order No. 85 states only those candidates in reserved category who have not availed relaxation in age, physical measurements and qualifying marks in written test may be appointed in unreserved category and thereby bars the reserved candidates who have availed such concession from migration to unreserved category.” The Bench further stated: “A partial modification of the Standing Order No. 78 by Standing Order No. 85 would naturally have an overriding effect and Para 14(f) of the latter Standing Order will prevail over Para 14(b) of former Standing Order, putting an embargo on migration of reserved candidates who have availed relaxation of age and/or physical measurements to fill up unreserved vacancies.”
Referring to its earlier ruling in Union of India & Ors. vs. Sajib Roy, the Court noted: “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… However, if an embargo is imposed under relevant recruitment rules, such reserved candidates shall not be permitted to migrate to general category seats.”
On the CISF recruitment, the Court held differently, observing: “Office memorandum dated 01.07.1998 does not expressly state relaxed concessions in physical measurements availed by a reserved candidate would disentitle the candidate from being considered for appointment under general category if he has scored higher than the cut-off marks in such category.”
Endorsing the High Court’s reasoning, it recorded: “The word ‘etc.’ has to be read ejusdem generis. It takes colour from the preceding words which refer to age limit, experience, and qualifications. It does not contemplate physical standards which would vary depending on gender, geographical location, and so on.”
The Bench thus distinguished between relaxations in eligibility or qualifying standards (age, marks, qualifications) and category-based physical standards (height, chest, weight), treating the latter as inherent variations rather than relaxed standards.
In the RPF case, the Court allowed the appeal: “In light of the aforesaid discussion, particularly the bar envisaged in Standing Order No. 85 read with Revised Directive No. 29, we are of the view the High Court erred in directing the respondents-writ petitioners to be selected against the unreserved posts. The impugned judgment and order is set aside. Appeal is allowed.” Pending applications were disposed of.
In the CISF matter, the Court dismissed the appeal, holding: “We are fortified to come to such conclusion as office memo dated 01.07.1998 does not expressly state relaxed concessions in physical measurements availed by a reserved candidate would disentitle the candidate from being considered for appointment under general category if he has scored higher than the cut-off marks in such category.”
“In light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the judgement and order of the High Court does not call for interference. Appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.”
Case Title: Railway Protection Force & Ors. v. Prem Chand Kumar & Ors with Uma Shankar Gurjar v. Union of India
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1083
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. ___/2025 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 20866/2019 & 28469/2019)
Bench: Justice Surya Kant; Justice Joymalya Bagchi
