Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-011716-011716 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 27112/2019 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI (concurring) |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms embargo on migration; sets aside High Court order |
| Type of Law | Service/recruitment law |
| Questions of Law | Whether reserved‐category candidates who availed age and/or physical relaxations can be appointed against unreserved vacancies if they secure higher marks than the unreserved cut‐off under conflicting standing orders? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The later “partial modification” in Revised Directive No. 29 applies Standing Order No. 85 (para 14(f)) to recruitment of ancillary constables, creating an embargo on migration of reserved candidates who availed of age or physical relaxations. When two standing orders conflict, the specific, later provision prevails. Those who fail cut‐off or trade test remain ineligible. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The Railway Board’s Employment Notice No. 1/2013 for 763 ancillary‐service constables offered age and physical relaxations for SC/ST/OBC candidates. Some such candidates scored above the unreserved category cut‐offs. The High Court directed their appointment against unreserved vacancies. The Supreme Court held SO 85 para 14(f) barred this migration. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts, service tribunals, and recruiting authorities |
| Persuasive For | High Courts in recruitment disputes |
| Overrules | High Court order in Writ Petition (C) No. 1350/2017 directing migration |
| Distinguishes | Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of UP & Ors. (2010) |
| Follows | Union of India & Ors. v. Sajib Roy (SLP C No.21392-93/2019) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Clarifies that Revised Directive No. 29’s “partial modification” of Standing Order No. 78 applies Standing Order No. 85 para 14(f) to ancillary‐service constable recruitments.
- Establishes that para 14(f) of SO 85 bars migration of reserved candidates who availed age or physical relaxations, even if they outscore unreserved cut‐offs.
- Emphasises that conflicting provisions are resolved by giving effect to the later, specific directive.
- Highlights necessity to examine superseding standing orders or directives before challenging recruitment lists.
- Confirms that higher marks alone do not guarantee migration if a recruitment rule contains an embargo.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Recruitment notifications invoked Standing Order No. 78 (para 14(b)) allowing reserved candidates with higher marks to fill unreserved vacancies, but also Standing Order No. 85 (para 14(f)) barring migration of those who availed relaxations.
- Revised Directive No. 29 (dated 06.12.2013) partially modified SO 78 by applying SO 85 procedures to ancillary constable posts.
- The term “partial modification” means that SO 85’s para 14(f) overrides conflicting SO 78 para 14(b).
- Under paras 14(e)–(f) of SO 85, reserved candidates who availed age or physical relaxations cannot be counted in unreserved vacancies.
- Reliance on Sajib Roy affirmed that embargos in recruitment rules prevent migration, distinguishing Jitendra Singh inapplicable where an express bar exists.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners (Railway Protection Force / Union of India)
- The recruitment notification and Revised Directive No. 29 invoke SO 85 para 14(f), which expressly bars migration of reserved candidates who availed relaxations.
- The later directive “partially modifies” SO 78, giving overriding effect to SO 85 in conflict.
Respondents (Writ Petitioners)
- Standing Order No. 78 para 14(b) governs ancillary‐service recruitments and allows SC/ST/OBC candidates with higher marks to fill unreserved vacancies.
- Revised Directive No. 29 does not wholly supersede para 14(b); it merely adds procedures.
Factual Background
Between 2013 and 2016, the Railway Board issued Employment Notice No. 1/2013 for ancillary‐service constable posts with age and physical relaxations for SC/ST/OBC. Several reserved candidates who availed these relaxations scored above the general‐category cut‐offs. Unfilled vacancies led them to petition the High Court for appointment against unreserved posts. The High Court allowed their migration. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that Standing Order No. 85 para 14(f), as applied via Revised Directive No. 29, barred such migration and set aside the High Court’s order.
Statutory Analysis
- Standing Order No. 78 (21.02.2008) para 14(b): Allows reserved candidates with higher marks to fill unreserved vacancies.
- Standing Order No. 85 (05.03.2009) para 14(f): Bars migration of reserved candidates who availed relaxations in age, physical measurements, or qualifying marks.
- Revised Directive No. 29 (06.12.2013): Partially modifies SO 78 by applying SO 85 procedures to recruitment of ancillary‐service constables, giving para 14(f) overriding effect.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirms embargo principle from Union of India v. Sajib Roy
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Resolves conflict between Standing Orders 78 and 85