SC bars reserved category from switching to general if rules prohibit

Supreme Court rules that reserved candidates using relaxations cannot claim unreserved posts if recruitment rules restrict such migration

Supreme Court
Supreme Court on Reserved vs General Quota
Swati Gandhi New Delhi
2 min read Last Updated : Sep 12 2025 | 2:12 PM IST
The Supreme Court on Tuesday, September 9, held that candidates from reserved categories who have availed of fee or age relaxations cannot be considered for unreserved category vacancies if the recruitment rules prohibit such migration, news agency PTI reported.
 
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi made the observation while hearing a plea by the Centre challenging a Tripura High Court order. The high court had permitted OBC candidates — who had availed age relaxation — to be considered under the general category for constable recruitment.
 
“Whether a reserved candidate who has availed relaxation in fees or 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,” the bench said.
 
The court clarified that if recruitment rules or job notifications do not impose such restrictions, reserved category candidates who perform better than the last unreserved selected candidate can be recruited in the general category.
 
However, if the recruitment guidelines specifically bar such migration, then those candidates shall not be considered under the unreserved quota.
 
The Centre cited a 1998 office memorandum stating that SC, ST, and OBC candidates who benefit from age, attempt, or fee relaxations are ineligible for unreserved posts.
 
In this case, the candidates had applied under the OBC category and availed of age relaxation. While they failed to qualify in their category due to lower marks, their scores were higher than the last selected candidate in the unreserved list. They had approached the Tripura High Court seeking migration to the general category.
 
The Supreme Court also referred to a 2018 Delhi High Court decision in a similar case and declined to follow its reasoning, stating that such transitions depend on the specific rules governing recruitment.
*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

Topics :Supreme CourtReservationsReservation quotaOBC quotaScheduled TribesScheduled CastesBS Web Reports

First Published: Sep 12 2025 | 2:00 PM IST

Next Story