Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-000304-000304 – 2026 |
| Diary Number | 17161/2020 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH |
| Bench |
|
| Precedent Value | Binding authority (Supreme Court decision) |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Administrative law / Constitutional law (reservation in public employment) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The reservation roster is maintained post-selection to monitor cadre composition and identify future vacancies, not to displace candidates who secure unreserved slots on merit. A reserved-category candidate who qualifies on the basis of their own marks, without any concession, must be treated as an unreserved candidate and counted against unreserved vacancies. No “migration” or roster-based displacement is required where merit alone determines selection. This approach gives effect to Articles 14, 16 and 335, as expounded in Indra Sawhney and subsequent rulings, ensuring reservation serves inclusion without penalising meritorious candidates. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Purpose and administrative nature of reservation roster under 1997 DoPT Memorandum; Articles 14, 16, 335 (affirmative action); merit as sole criterion for open vacancies; binding SC precedents on vertical reservation and cross-category merit; distinction between roster maintenance post-selection and selection mechanism |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All public authorities and subordinate courts when implementing reservation in public employment |
| Persuasive For | None (this is a binding Supreme Court decision) |
| Overrules | Division Bench’s W.A. No. 1581 of 2018 (Kerala High Court) |
| Distinguishes | Chattar Singh v. State of Punjab (1995 2 SCC 617) inapplicable where written test is not mere preliminary |
| Follows | Indra Sawhney, Saurav Yadav, Rajasthan HC & Anr. v. Rajat Yadav & Ors., Mathew David v. State of Kerala & Ors. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reservation roster is a post-selection administrative tool to monitor cadre composition, not a parallel mechanism to displace meritorious candidates.
- Reserved candidates who score above the general cut-off on their own merit must be counted against unreserved vacancies without any “migration” adjustment.
- Confirms that selection rules and DOPT OMs allow meritorious SC/ST/OBC candidates to occupy UR slots, filling only the advertised unreserved posts.
- High Court’s direction to appoint additional meritorious candidate against a freshly created vacancy is set aside—no surplus UR point remains once all UR vacancies are filled on merit.
- Lawyers can cite this as binding authority to resist challenges based on alleged roster misapplication in quashing petitions or selection disputes.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Nature of Roster: Reservation register under 1997 DoPT OM is maintained post-selection for monitoring, not for stamping selections.
- Merit Principle: Reserved-category candidates who secure higher marks than general candidates must be treated as UR candidates—merit trumps category at open slots.
- Precedent Alignment: Indra Sawhney and Saurav Yadav clarify vertical reservation allows “migration” of high-scoring reserved candidates into open category without depleting reserved quota.
- Distinction: Chattar Singh inapplicable where written test forms substantive part of final assessment rather than a mere preliminary filter.
- Constitutional Mandate: Articles 14, 16, 335 require real-world equality and inclusive public employment, preserving merit across and within categories.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant (Airport Authority of India)
- Selection complied with recruitment rules and 1997 DoPT roster format.
- Reserved-category candidates on own merit occupy UR vacancies—no roster breach.
- Reserved register is an administrative tool post-selection.
- Writ petition barred by delay and laches.
Respondent No. 1 (Sham Krishna B.)
- Selection misapplied roster by placing OBC/SC/ST candidates into UR slots without filling reserved posts.
- Meritorious SC candidate denied rightful appointment.
- Writ petition filed promptly after RTI.
Factual Background
Sham Krishna B. applied for 2013 recruitment to 245 Junior Assistant (Fire Service) posts (122 UR, 78 OBC, 22 SC, 23 ST). He qualified all stages but ranked below the 122 UR cut-off. RTI disclosures showed only 158 posts filled, with reserved candidates in UR list. Kerala High Court directed his appointment to a vacancy and roster-compliant re-publication. AAI appealed to the Supreme Court.
Statutory Analysis
- Department of Personnel & Training Office Memorandum dated 02.07.1997: model roster guidelines—vertical reservation, post-based register for monitoring.
- DOPT OM dated 23.01.2014: simplified reservation register format (Annexure 1, Chapter 5).
- Constitutional provisions: Article 14 (equality), Article 16 (equality of opportunity), Article 335 (special consideration for SC/ST in public employment).
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
Hon’ble Mr Justice M.M. Sundresh concurs, emphasizing that roster does not govern the selection process, only the post-selection cadre composition. No separate dissent.
Procedural Innovations
Clarifies that merit-based short-listing and final selection must treat all candidates initially as unreserved, with subsequent categorisation only if UR slots are unattainable on merits.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Supreme Court precedents on vertical reservation affirmed
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – Kerala High Court roster application overturned