Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-011718-011719 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 28496/2019 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI |
| Precedent Value | Binding |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Did the High Court err in applying the ratio of Jitendra Kumar Singh despite an office memorandum dated 01.07.1998 that bars migration of reserved candidates who avail concessions to unreserved vacancies? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that the general observations in Jitendra Kumar Singh, which rest on a statutory scheme and instructions permitting migration, cannot override an express embargo in recruitment rules or office memoranda. Where reserved candidates have availed concessions such as age relaxation, they are deemed unavailable for unreserved vacancies. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Statutory interpretation of office memorandum No. 36011/1/98-Estt. (Res) dated 01.07.1998; principle that a ratio must be confined to its factual matrix (Quinn v. Leathem; Abdul Kayoom); distinction between “aid to reservation” in Jitendra Kumar Singh’s scheme and an express bar in the present recruitment process. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | SSC invite for Constable (GD) posts in central armed forces, age limit 18–23 with 3-year OBC relaxation. Respondents availed relaxation, scored below OBC cut-off but above unreserved cut-off. High Court applied Jitendra Kumar Singh to permit migration. Union relied on office memorandum barring such migration. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts and High Courts |
| Persuasive For | Staff Selection Commission, Union of India, recruitment authorities |
| Overrules | The High Court orders dated 12.10.2018 and 26.02.2019 |
| Distinguishes | Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr v. State of UP & Ors (2010) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that an express embargo in an office memorandum (01.07.1998) precludes migration of reserved candidates who have availed concessions (age, experience, chances).
- Clarifies that the general “aid to reservation” rationale in Jitendra Kumar Singh applies only where recruitment rules expressly permit migration.
- Emphasises the need to examine recruitment rules and office memoranda for any bar before invoking the “level-playing field” principle.
- Reaffirms that ratio decidendi must be read in light of the specific statutory or policy scheme.
- Provides binding authority to oppose migration petitions when an express bar exists in the recruitment scheme.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- High Court’s Approach: Applied Jitendra Kumar Singh’s general principle that age/fee relaxations are ancillary and permit “aid to reservation,” thereby allowing OBC candidates to migrate when scoring above unreserved cut-off.
- Office Memorandum’s Embargo: Office memorandum No. 36011/1/98-Estt. (Res) dated 01.07.1998 expressly bars SC/ST/OBC candidates who avail relaxations (age, experience, number of chances) from being considered against unreserved vacancies.
- Distinction from Jitendra Kumar Singh: That case relied on a statutory scheme (U.P. Act 1994) and government instructions dated 25.03.1994 permitting migration; such scheme is absent here.
- Precedents Affirmed: Two-judge benches in Deepa E. V. (2017) and Gaurav Pradhan (2018) held Jitendra Kumar Singh inapplicable where an express bar exists.
- Principle of Factual Matrix: Ratio must be confined to the facts and statutory context of the case (Quinn v. Leathem; Abdul Kayoom).
- Conclusion: In presence of an express embargo in recruitment rules or office memorandum, reserved candidates who have availed concessions cannot migrate to unreserved vacancies.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Union of India):
- Office memorandum dated 01.07.1998 bars reserved candidates who availed age relaxation from being considered against unreserved vacancies.
- Jitendra Kumar Singh’s ratio is confined to its statutory scheme and inapplicable here.
Respondents (Writ Petitioners):
- Principle of “level-playing field” under Article 14 and efficiency under Article 335 entitle them to migration when scoring above unreserved cut-off.
- Concessions are ancillary and should not disenfranchise meritorious candidates.
Factual Background
In 2015 SSC conducted recruitment for Constables (GD) in central armed forces. The age limit was 18–23, with a 3-year relaxation for OBCs. Respondents availed age relaxation, but although they scored below the last OBC-category selectees, their marks exceeded the last unreserved-category selectees. The High Court allowed migration relying on Jitendra Kumar Singh. Union of India challenged, relying on a 1998 office memorandum that prohibits migration of SC/ST/OBC candidates who availed concessions.
Statutory Analysis
- Office Memorandum No. 36011/1/98-Estt. (Res) dated 01.07.1998: Clarifies that SC/ST/OBC candidates who avail relaxations in age, experience, number of chances, etc., are to be counted against reserved vacancies and deemed unavailable for unreserved vacancies.
- 1994 Act & Instructions (Jitendra Kumar Singh context): Section 8(1) of the U.P. Public Services (Reservation…) Act empowered concessions in age/fees; Instructions dated 25.03.1994 permitted migration when no express bar existed.
- Interpretation: The Supreme Court emphasised statutory context and found the 1998 memorandum to be a clear embargo overriding any general principles.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions were recorded.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural precedents or guidelines were issued.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Deepa E. V. (2017); Gaurav Pradhan (2018)
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – High Court orders dated 12.10.2018 and 26.02.2019 were overruled.