The Supreme Court has agreed to examine a legal challenge concerning the criteria for candidate migration across reserved and unreserved categories in government recruitment. The dispute centers on whether an OBC candidate, who secures eligibility by utilizing age relaxation, can subsequently be considered for vacancies within the general category if their marks surpass those of selected unreserved candidates.
The matter originated from the 2018 recruitment process for positions including constables for Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs), the National Investigation Agency (NIA), the Secretariat Security Force, and riflemen in the Assam Rifles. An OBC candidate from Tripura, Jayant Debnath, sought a position in this recruitment drive. While he became eligible for the examination by availing the age-relaxation benefit specifically provided to the reserved category, he was not selected for the post. His score of 55.1 marks was higher than that of a successful general-category candidate, Sagar Debnath, who secured 46.26 marks.
Following the rejection, the case reached the Tripura High Court. Both a single-judge bench and a subsequent division bench ruled in favor of the candidate, determining that he should be considered for the constable position despite his use of the reserved-category age benefit. The High Court observed that there is no established legal principle prohibiting candidates from claiming unreserved vacancies merely because they utilized concessions typically applicable to reserved categories.
The Centre has since challenged these High Court judgments in the Supreme Court. During proceedings on Monday, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Centre, addressed a bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana. The government maintained that recruitment rules explicitly state that once a candidate avails of age relaxation as a member of a reserved category, they are prohibited from migrating to the general category.
The government further argued that the candidate in question had gained entry into the recruitment process exclusively under the reserved category. According to the Centre, the cut-off marks for OBC candidates were higher than those for the general category in this specific instance due to a limited number of available vacancies. They contended that allowing migration in such circumstances would contradict established recruitment protocols.
The Centre expressed significant concern regarding the potential implications of the High Court’s ruling on broader administrative processes. Officials stated that the verdict could have "far-reaching consequences" for examinations conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) and other agencies nationwide. They argued that permitting such migration could unsettle concluded selection processes, negatively impact category-wise merit determinations, and infringe upon the rights of unreserved candidates.
The Supreme Court bench has acknowledged the gravity of the legal point raised and agreed to review the correctness of the High Court's judgment. As the case proceeds, it will likely provide a definitive interpretation of whether the use of reservation-specific concessions acts as a definitive bar to accessing unreserved vacancies in public employment, a decision that could reshape recruitment policies across India.
Comments