2026 INSC 15 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4743 of 2020)

UNION OF INDIA ... APPELLANT

versus

G. KIRAN & ORS. … RESPONDENTS

with

CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026

(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4067 of 2022)

ANTONY S MARIYAPPA …..APPELLANT

versus

G. KIRAN & ORS. …..RESPONDENTS

J U D G M E N T

J.K. Maheshwari J.

1.Leave granted.

2.Assailing the final judgment and order dated 06.08.2019

passed in Writ Petition No. 18947 of 2016 (S-CAT) connected with

1

REPORTABLE

Writ Petition No. 54254 of 2016 (S-CAT) by the High Court of

Karnataka at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘High Court’),

the appellants have filed these appeals. For the sake of brevity, we

will refer to the parties as per their status in Civil Appeal arising

out of Special Leave Petition (C) No. 4743 of 2020.

3.The dispute in the present appeals is regarding the claim of a

reserved category candidate i.e., Respondent No. 1, who availed

relaxation in the Preliminary Examination but was placed higher in

merit than the unreserved candidate i.e., Respondent No. 3 in the

final merit list based on total marks awarded in Main Examination

(Written) and Personality Test, to be treated as a General merit

candidate for the purpose of cadre allocation against a General

Insider vacancy for State of Karnataka in the Indian Forest Service

(hereinafter referred to as ‘IFS’).

4.Being aggrieved by the notification dated 13.03.2015 issued by

the Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change

(hereinafter referred to as ‘MoEFCC’), allocating Tamil Nadu Cadre

to Respondent No. 1 instead of Karnataka, Respondent No. 1

2

preferred an Original Application No. 170/239 of 2015 (hereinafter

referred to as ‘OA’) before the Central Administrative Tribunal,

Bangalore Bench (hereinafter referred to as ‘Tribunal’) and vide

order dated 15.03.2016, the Tribunal allowed the Original

Application holding that a meritorious Scheduled Caste (hereinafter

referred to as ‘SC’) candidate cannot be denied allocation against a

General vacancy solely on the ground of availing relaxation in the

SC cut-off marks at the stage of Preliminary Examination. The

Tribunal directed to allocate the General Insider vacancy in the

State of Karnataka to Respondent No. 1. Being aggrieved by the said

order, WP No. 18947 of 2016 (S-CAT) was filed by Respondent No. 3

(who was allocated the General insider vacancy) and WP No. 54254

of 2016 (S-CAT) was filed by the Union of India (hereinafter referred

to as ‘UOI’), which came to be dismissed by the common impugned

order of the High Court, affirming the view of the Tribunal. Hence,

the present appeals.

3

FACTUAL MATRIX

5.Prequel to the present litigation, the MoEFCC issued

Notification No. 17011/01/2013-IFS-II dated 05.03.2013

publishing ‘The Rules for a competitive examination to be held by the

Union Public Service Commission in 2013’ (hereinafter referred to as

‘Exam Rules, 2013’) for the purpose of filling vacancies in the

Indian Forest Service.

6.Respondent No. 1, belongs to SC category and Respondent No.

3 belongs to General category. Both appeared for the Preliminary

Examination in the year 2013. As per Exam Rules, 2013, the

selection process for IFS involved following two tiers – (i) the Civil

Services (Preliminary) Examination for purpose of screening; and (ii)

the Indian Forest Service (Main) Examination followed by an

Interview for personality test.

7.It is undisputed that in the Preliminary Examination, the cut-

off to qualify by General Category candidates was 267 and the cut-

off to qualify by SC category candidates was 233. Respondent No. 1

secured 247.18 marks, which was below the cut-off to qualify as

4

General category candidate, however, declared qualified for the Main

Examination availing the relaxed cut-off applicable to SC

candidates. Simultaneously, Respondent No. 3 secured 270.68

marks in the Preliminary Exam and qualified for the Main

Examination (Written) as the said score was above the cut-off for

General category. The details of the marks obtained has been

tabulated for ready reference as under: –

Name of Candidate Category

(as availed for

purpose of

Preliminary Exam)

Qualifying Marks

(for purpose of

Preliminary

Exam)

Marks Obtained

in the

Preliminary

Exam

G Kiran

[Respondent No. 1]

SC 233 247.18

Antony S Mariyappa

[Respondent No. 3]

General/Unreserved 267 270.68

8.Both the candidates appeared in the Main Examination

(Written) in October 2013 and qualified the same. They appeared in

Interview for personality test in December 2013. After all the stages

of exam and on the basis of marks secured by respective candidates

in the Main Examination and Interview, on 29

th

January 2014, the

Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as ‘UPSC’)

recommended total 85 candidates for appointment as IFS.

5

9.In the final merit list, Respondent No. 1 was placed at rank 19

while Respondent No. 3 came to be placed at rank 37. Consequent

thereto, controversy was set into motion during the allocation of

cadres. For the 2013 examination, there were only two available

vacancies in the State of Karnataka - one was of ‘General Insider’

and the other was of ‘OBC Outsider’. Applying the Cadre Allocation

Policy issued on 10

th

April 2008 later amended on 21

st

April 2011

(hereinafter referred to as ‘Policy’), the UOI vide notification dated

13.03.2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘impugned notification’)

allocated the ‘General Insider’ vacancy for State of Karnataka to

Respondent No. 3 being General category candidate. On the other

hand, Respondent No. 1, who was also having preference for State of

Karnataka, allocated the Tamil Nadu cadre, since no SC Insider

post was vacant in the State of Karnataka.

10.Challenging the impugned notification, Respondent No. 1 filed

the OA before the Tribunal on 26.03.2015 asking to quash the

notification in so far as it relates to him and Respondent No. 3 and

also sought a consequent direction to UOI and UPSC to allot him

6

the General Insider vacancy in the State of Karnataka with all

consequential benefits. The Tribunal, by order dated 15.03.2016

allowed the OA, which was affirmed by the High Court vide

impugned order dated 06.08.2019.

11.The High Court was of the view that since Respondent No. 1

had secured a higher rank in Main Examination (Written) compared

to Respondent No. 3, and the Preliminary Examination was merely a

screening test and marks obtained therein were not to be

considered to draw the final merit, therefore, for cadre allocation,

the former should be treated as General category candidate and

would be entitled to get allocation of Karnataka cadre in General

Insider vacancy. Assailing these findings, present appeals have been

preferred by UOI and Respondent No. 3.

ARGUMENTS OF APPELLANT AND RESPONDENTS

12.Mr. K.M. Nataraj, learned Senior Counsel and Additional

Solicitor General of India, with vehemence submitted that the

allocation of cadre is governed by the Exam Rules, 2013 and the

7

Policy. Rule 14 of the Exam Rules, 2013 specifically bars the

adjustment of reserved category candidates against unreserved

vacancies if they have availed relaxation at any stage in eligibility or

selection criteria. He put forth emphasis to phrase ‘any stage of the

examination’ and argued that Respondent No. 1 could not secure

marks above cut-off for General category in the Preliminary

Examination. He had appeared in Main Examination after getting

benefit of relaxed standard in SC category, therefore, having availed

a relaxation in Preliminary Examination, Respondent No. 1 cannot

be a candidate selected on "General Standards" required under

Paragraph 9 of the Policy read with Rule 14 of the Exam Rules,

2013. To buttress such contentions, reliance has been placed on

the judgments of this Court in Deepa E.V. v. Union of India and

Ors.

1

, Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan

2

, Niravkumar

Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujarat Public Service Commission

3

,

Union of India v. Sajib Roy

4

.

1 (2017) 12 SCC 680

2 (2018) 11 SCC 352

3 (2019) 7 SCC 383

4 (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1943

8

13.Learned Counsel Mr. Vardhman Kaushik, representing the

UPSC has supported the submissions made by the Learned

Additional Solicitor General of India. Similarly, Learned Senior

Counsel, Mr. Nikhil Goel, appearing for the Respondent No. 3, and

the Appellant in the connected appeal, has also supported the said

contentions and urged that once the benefit of relaxation has been

obtained by Respondent No. 1 in the Preliminary Examination, he

cannot claim ‘General Insider’ vacancy at a later stage at the time of

cadre allocation, therefore, the decisions of the Tribunal and High

Court are liable to be set-aside.

14.Per contra, Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Jayanth Muth Raj

appearing for Respondent No. 1 submits that the Preliminary

Examination is merely a screening test to shortlist candidates for

the Main Examination. Clause 2 of Section I of Appendix I to the

Exam Rules, 2013 clearly stipulates that the marks obtained in the

Preliminary Examination by the candidates will not be counted for

determining the final order of merit. As such the marks obtained by

Respondent No. 1 in Preliminary Examination, taking benefit of

9

relaxed standards applicable to SC Candidate cannot be used

adversely for the purpose of cadre allocation to him.

15.It is urged, once a candidate performs on merit, surpasses the

‘General Standards’ and qualifies the Main Examination, securing a

higher rank than Respondent No. 3 i.e. General category candidate

in the final list, the grant of initial relaxation in Preliminary

Examination fades into insignificance. It is said that denial of the

General Insider vacancy to a more meritorious candidate on the

pretext of relaxation availed in the Preliminary Examination which

doesn’t even form the basis of final merit list, violates the principles

of meritocracy and substantive equality as enshrined under Articles

14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

16.Learned Senior Counsel placed reliance upon the reasoning of

the High Court that the term ‘General Standards’ in Paragraph 9 of

the Policy refers to the ‘General Qualifying Standard’ as contained

in Rule 14(i) of Exam Rules, which Respondent No. 1 undisputedly

met and surpassed. In support of these contentions, judgements of

10

this court in Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of UP

5

, Ajithkumar

P. v. Remin K. R.

6

and Vikas Sankhala and Others v. Vikas

Kumar Agarwal and Others

7

has been relied upon and prayed for

dismissal of these appeals.

APPRECIATION OF ARGUMENTS

17.After having heard learned counsels and upon perusal of the

material placed, in our view, the question that falls for our

consideration is whether a reserved category candidate who availed

relaxation while qualifying Preliminary Examination, though secured

more marks than cut-off of the General Category candidate in the

Main Examination and Interview for personality test and secured

place in the final merit list, can be considered as ‘Insider General’

candidate for cadre allocation against an unreserved vacancy?

18.In order to adjudicate upon the issue, it is pertinent to refer to

the relevant provisions of Rules, 1, 13, 14 and 17 of the Exam

Rules, 2013 which are reproduced as hereunder -

5 (2010) 3 SCC 119

6 (2015) 16 SCC 778

7 (2017) 1 SCC 350

11

“Rule 1. Indian Forest Service Examination will be a two tier (sic)

examination – a preliminary screening examination followed by a

Main Examination and Interviesw. For screening suitable number

of candidates for the 2nd stage of the Examination to be named as

Indian Forest Service (Main) Examination, all candidates would be

required to qualify Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination

(hereinafter called the Preliminary Examination).

xxx xxx xxx

Rule 13. Candidates who obtain such minimum qualifying marks

in the Preliminary Examination as may be fixed by the Commission

at their discretion shall be admitted to the Indian Forest Service

(Main) Examination (Written); and candidates who obtain such

minimum qualifying marks in the Main Examination (Written) as

may be fixed by the Commission at their discretion shall be

summoned by them for an interview for a personality test;

The minimum qualifying marks as determined above, may be

relaxable at the discretion of the Commission, in favour of

Physically Handicapped candidates, in order to fill up the vacancies

reserved for them, if any.

Provided that candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes

or Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes may be

summoned for an interview for personality test by the commission

by applying relaxed standards in the Preliminary Examination as

well as Main Examination (Written) if the Commission is of the

opinion that sufficient number of candidates from these

communities are not likely to be summoned for interview for a

personality test on the basis of the general standard in order to fill

up vacancies reserved for them.

xxx xxx xxx

Rule 14. (i) After interview, the candidates will be arranged by the

Commission in the order of merit as disclosed by aggregate marks

finally awarded to each candidate in the Main Examination.

12

Thereafter, the commission shall, for the purpose of recommending

candidates against unreserved vacancies, fix a qualifying mark

(hereinafter referred to as general qualifying standard) with

reference to the number of unreserved vacancies to be filled up on

the basis of the Main Examination.

(ii) The candidates belonging to any of the Scheduled Castes, the

Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes may to the extent of

the number of vacancies reserved for the Scheduled Castes, the

Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes be

recommended by the Commission by a relaxed standard, subject to

the fitness of these candidates for selection to the Service.

Provided that the candidates belonging to the Scheduled

Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes who

have been recommended by the Commission without resorting to

any relaxations/concessions in the eligibility or selection criteria,

at any stage of the examination, shall not be adjusted against the

vacancies reserved for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes

and Other Backward Classes.

xxx xxx xxx

Rule 17. (i) A candidate who qualifies the Preliminary Examination

shall be required to indicate the Detailed Application Form his/her

choice in the order of preference from amongst the various State

Cadres including his/her ‘Home State’ in case he/she is appointed

to the Indian Forest Service.

(ii) the cadre allotment to candidates appointed to Indian Forest

Service will be governed by the policy of cadre allotment in force at

the time of allotment of cadre. Due consideration will be given at

the time of making allocation on the results of the examination to

the preferences expressed by candidate for various cadres at the

time of his/her application.”

13

19.After going through Rule 1, it is evident that IFS examination

consists of two tiers - tier one is of Preliminary Examination and

tier two consists of Main Examination (Written) and Interview. For

screening suitable number of candidates for the 2

nd

stage i.e.,

Indian Forest Service (Main) Examination, all candidates are

required to qualify the Preliminary Examination.

20.Perusal of Rule 13 makes it abundantly clear that after

obtaining minimum qualifying marks in Preliminary Examination,

the candidate, shall be entitled to appear in the Main Examination

(Written). The candidate obtaining minimum qualifying marks in

Main Examination may be summoned for Interview for personality

test. The determination of the minimum qualifying marks to

summon a candidate for an Interview for personality test shall be

the discretion of the UPSC. The proviso confers discretion upon

UPSC for applying the ‘Relaxed Standards’ to the candidates

belonging to the SC, ST and OBC either in Preliminary or Main

Examination (Written) in case sufficient member of these

14

communities are not likely to be summoned applying the ‘General

Standard’ to fill up the vacancies reserved for these categories.

21.As per Rule 14, the candidates who obtain qualifying marks in

Main Examination (Written) and are summoned for Interview for

personality test shall be arranged in the order of merit as disclosed

by the UPSC on the basis of the aggregate of marks scored in Main

Examination (Written). After preparation of merit list, the UPSC

shall fix qualifying marks for applying ‘General Qualifying

Standards’ for recommending the candidate commensurate to the

available unreserved vacancies, to be filled up on the basis of the

Main Examination. In this view, Rule 14(i) operates in two parts.

First portion deals with preparation of merit list and latter portion

deals with preparation of merit list of unreserved category applying

the general qualifying standards. Rule 14(ii) applies to the

candidates belonging to the SC, ST and OBC to which the UPSC

shall make recommendation on basis of ‘Relaxed Standard’ subject

to the fitness of these candidates for selection to the service. The

consequence of availing the ‘Relaxed Standard’ is stipulated in the

15

proviso to Rule 14(ii), whereby it is clear that if a candidate has

found place in the merit list without availing ‘Relaxed Standards’

i.e., without resorting to ‘any’ ‘relaxations’ or ‘concessions’ in

eligibility or selection criteria ‘at any stage of examination’, they

shall not be adjusted against the vacancies reserved for SC, ST and

OBC.

22.In the above context, the word ‘any’ is relatable to relaxations

or concessions either in ‘eligibility’ or any ‘selection criteria’. It

further qualifies that such relaxation/concession can be availed at

‘any stage of examination’ having relevance to Rule 1 which

indicates that all candidates would be required to qualify the

Preliminary Examination in order to appear in the Main

Examination. Therefore, the proviso throw light by focusing on the

issue of relaxations and concessions in eligibility or selection

criteria at any stage of examination. At this stage, the point to

ponder upon is if a candidate obtains such relaxation or concession

in ‘eligibility’ or ‘selection criteria’ what would be its effect in the

16

matter of cadre allocation, especially in the facts and circumstances

of the case in hand.

23.As per Rule 17 of Exam Rules, 2013, indeed it is correct to say

that only after qualifying the Preliminary Examination the

candidate does have a choice to submit the preference for various

state cadres including home state for appointment to the IFS. It is

further true that the State Cadre allotment to the IFS will be

governed by the policy in force at the time of allotment of cadre. In

the said context the policy dated 10

th

April 2008 amended on 21

st

April 2011 governing the cadre allocation of the relevant time

assumes significance. Para 9 of the Policy is relevant, therefore,

reproduced as thus: -

“9. Notwithstanding what has been said above a reserved category

candidate selected on general standards shall be eligible for

allocation against the available un-reserved vacancy as per his

merit and preference. But if he cannot be allocated against such

vacancy, for he is lower in rank compared with other general

category candidates, he shall be considered for allocation as per his

merit and preference against the available vacancy of his category.”

17

24.Upon conjoint reading of the Rules quoted above in

juxtaposition to Clause 9 of the Policy, it is clear that a reserved

category candidate selected applying ‘General Standard’ has

eligibility for allocation on unreserved vacancy as per his merit and

preference if he is not lower in rank from other General category

candidates, otherwise he shall be considered for allocation as per

his merit and preference against the available vacancy of his

category. In the said context, it is clear that for allocation of

unreserved vacancy to a candidate of reserved category, the

selection must be on ‘General Standard’ without availing any

‘Relaxed Standard’ in either eligibility or selection criteria. In case

any ‘Relaxed Standard’ has been availed by him, his allocation of

cadre would be as per his merit and preference against vacancy of

his category.

25.After analyzing the Exam Rules, 2013 and the Policy, we find

ourselves at variance with the findings recorded in the Impugned

Order. While dismissing the Writ Petition and affirming the order of

the Tribunal, the thrust of reasoning of the High Court was that

18

‘General Standards’ as used in Paragraph 9 of Policy can only mean

to be ‘General Qualifying Standard’ as appearing in Rule 14(i) of

Exam Rules, 2013 i.e. qualifying marks fixed by UPSC with

reference to number of unreserved vacancies to be filled up on the

basis of the Main Examination. In other words, the High Court

effectively read Paragraph 9 of the Policy to mean that if a reserved

category candidate selected acquiring the position in the merit of

unreserved category list obtaining ‘qualifying marks fixed by UPSC

with reference to number of unreserved vacancies on the basis of

the Main Examination’ shall be eligible for allocation against

available unreserved vacancies. It was also observed that the

purpose behind providing relaxation in the nature of age, number of

attempts, payment of fees and such other eligibility criteria in favour

of candidates belonging to reserved category is to ensure a level

playing field and that real merit is tested in the Main Examination

(Written) where the mettle of the candidates is put to test. Hence, if

the candidates belonging to the reserved category score better than

a general merit candidate in the tier two examination, such

19

candidate cannot be denied cadre allocation in open category

insider cadre vacancy.

26.We are unable to subscribe to and confirm the view taken by

the High Court. In our view, the High Court lost sight of the

mandate of Rule 1 which clearly prescribes that IFS Examination

consists of two tiers - first tier is Preliminary Examination followed

by tier two involving Main Exam (Written) and Interview. Only those

candidates who are found suitable in the first tier may avail entry

for the tier two. All the candidates are required to qualify

Preliminary Examination for participation in further selection

process by way of Main Examination (Written) and Interview. Rule

13 and its proviso contemplate that only those candidates who

obtain minimum qualifying marks as prescribed on discretion by

UPSC in the Preliminary Examination shall be admitted to the Main

Examination (Written) and all those candidates who obtain

minimum qualifying marks as prescribed by UPSC in the Main

Examination (Written) shall be called upon for an Interview for a

personality test. The proviso to the said rule provides for applying

20

relaxed standards in Preliminary as well as the Main Examination

(Written) to SC, ST and OBC candidates for the purpose of

summoning them for interview if such candidate does not come

within the general standards in order to fill up the vacancies of

reserved category and to facilitate due representation.

27.Further, Rule 14(i) deals with preparation of merit list after a

written and interview for personality test. Thereafter, it deals with

recommending the candidates against unreserved vacancies

applying general standards with reference to number of unreserved

vacancies. Rule 14(ii) deals with the situation for the candidates of

SC, ST and OBC where discretion has been conferred upon UPSC to

grant relaxed standards to the fittest of these candidates for

selection to the service. While dealing with those relaxed

standards, it has been made clear in proviso that the candidates of

SC, ST and OBC recommended without resorting to ‘any’,

‘relaxation’ or ‘concession’ in ‘eligibility’ or ‘selection criteria’ at ‘any

stage of examination’ may be adjusted against the vacancies of

unreserved category. The natural corollary to the above makes it

21

clear those reserved category candidates who have availed of any

relaxation or concession at ‘any stage of the examination’ are not

eligible to be adjusted against unreserved vacancies.

28.On appreciation of the rules referred above, it is clear that any

relaxation or concession in eligibility or in selection criteria, if taken

at any stage of examination by such candidate of SC, ST and OBC,

they may not get any benefit to claim the vacancy of unreserved

category, in particular, in the context of Rule 17(1) of the Exam

Rule, 2013 seeking allocation of General Insider vacancy in home

State cadre as it would be contrary to paragraph 9 of the Policy.

29.It is relevant to emphasis that Rule 1 clearly stipulates that

IFS examination involves two tiers. Without qualifying first tier i.e.,

Preliminary Examination, a candidate may not be in a position to

participate in Main Examination (Written). Therefore, even though

the Preliminary Examination is merely a screening test and marks

obtained may not be counted for determining final merit as per

Clause 2 of Section I of Appendix-I of Exam Rules, 2013,

nonetheless, it is an integral stage of the examination and

22

relaxation availed by any candidate even at the stage of Preliminary

Examination cannot escape the phraseology of proviso to Rule 14(ii)

i.e., ‘relaxed standard’ granted at ‘any stage of examination’.

30.At this juncture, we can profitably refer to the judgment of this

Court in Deepa E.V. (Supra). In the said case, the appellant, who

was an OBC category candidate, sought appointment on general

unreserved vacancy on the ground that the marks obtained by her

was over and above the minimum cut-off marks prescribed for

general category candidates. While considering a similar provisions

as per O.M. of Department of Personnel and Training dated

01.07.1998, it was held that when a candidate avails age relaxation,

he is not entitled to be adjusted against the unreserved category.

The relevant paragraph is reproduced as thus –

“7. On a combined reading of Rule 9 of the Export Inspection

Agency (Recruitment) Rules, 1980 and also the proceedings dated

1-7-1998, we find that there is an express bar for the candidates

belonging to SC/ST/OBC who have availed relaxation for being

considered for general category candidates.”

23

The logic applied in above case applies with equal force to relaxation

in qualifying marks at the preliminary stage as it has happened in

the present appeals.

31.We also find merit in the reliance placed by the Appellant on

the decision in Gaurav Pradhan (Supra). In that case, the post in

question was of Police Constables and Sub-Inspectors of Police and

the recruitment process was of the year 2010. Vide an earlier

circular dated 24.06.2008, it was provided that the members of

SC/ST/OBC can compete against non-reserved vacancies and be

counted against them, in case they have not taken any concession

(like that of age, etc.) available to them other than that relating to

payment of examination fees in case of direct recruitment.

Thereafter, vide a circular dated 11.05.2011, without superseding

earlier circular of 2008, it was provided that if a candidate belonging

to BC/SBC/SC/ST, irrespective of whether they have availed of or

not any of the special concession which are available to them,

secures more marks than the marks obtained by last unreserved

category candidate who is selected, such a candidate belonging to

24

aforementioned categories shall be counted against unreserved

category vacancies and not reserved vacancies. On filing writ

petitions before High Court by various general category candidates,

the learned Single Judge dismissed the same which came to be

confirmed with certain modifications by the Division Bench. While

allowing the appeals, this Court observed thus:

“33. In a recent judgment, this Court has occasion to consider

the judgment of this Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh case [Jitendra

Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 119 : (2010) 1 SCC

(L&S) 772] . The learned counsel for the appellants has placed

much reliance on the judgment of this Court dated 6-4-2017

in Deepa E.V. v. Union of India [Deepa E.V. v. Union of India, (2017)

12 SCC 680 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 100] . It is necessary to notice

the facts of the case and the issues decided by this Court in Deepa

E.V. [Deepa E.V. v. Union of India, (2017) 12 SCC 680 : (2018) 1

SCC (L&S) 100] The appellant before this Court was an OBC

category candidate who claimed that she should be treated as

general category candidate. The appellant had availed the age

relaxation as OBC category candidate. A writ petition was filed by

the appellant claiming that she should be treated as candidate in

general category. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ

petition by the judgment dated 16-1-2015 [Deepa E.V. v. Union of

India, 2015 SCC OnLine Ker 2470] which judgment was affirmed

[Deepa E.V. v. Union of India, 2015 SCC OnLine Ker 21264] by the

Division Bench in the writ appeal. In para 2 of the judgment, facts

were noted to the following effect: (Deepa E.V. case [Deepa

E.V. v. Union of India, (2017) 12 SCC 680 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 100]

, SCC p. 681)

“2. The appellant applied for the post of Laboratory Assistant Grade II in

Export Inspection Council of India functioning under the Ministry of

25

Commerce and Industry, Government of India. The appellant belongs to

Dheevara community which is one of the “Other Backward Class”. Since

the appellant was aged 26 years, she got age relaxation, as was granted

to OBC category candidates. The appellant was one of the eleven

candidates from OBC who were called for interview. The appellant

secured 82 marks (in the list of candidates from OBC category). One Ms

Serena Joseph (OBC), who secured 93 marks was selected and

appointed.”

xxx xxx xxx

37. The judgment of this Court in Deepa E.V. [Deepa E.V. v. Union

of India, (2017) 12 SCC 680 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 100] fully

supports the case of the appellants. In Deepa E.V. case [Deepa

E.V. v. Union of India, (2017) 12 SCC 680 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 100]

also the Circular of the Central Government dated 1-7-1998/2-7-

1997 provided the relevant provision which is to the following

effect: (SCC pp. 682-83, para 6)

“6. … ‘… In other words, when a relaxed standard is applied in

selecting SC/ST/OBC candidates, for example in the age-limit, experience,

qualification, permitted number of chances in written examination,

extended zone of consideration larger than what is provided for general

category candidates, etc., the SC/ST/OBC candidates are to be counted

against reserved vacancies. Such candidates would be deemed as

unavailable for consideration against unreserved vacancies .’ ”

(emphasis in original)

xxx xxx xxx

46. The Division Bench [Rajesh Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 2014

SCC OnLine Raj 6470 : (2014) 2 RLW 1585] as well as the learned

counsel appearing for the State of Rajasthan has relied on the

Circular dated 11-5-2011. The Division Bench has observed that

the Circular dated 11-5-2011 did not change the rules of game.

The following observation has been made with regard to the

Circular dated 11-5-2011: (Rajesh Singh case [Rajesh Singh v. State

of Rajasthan, 2014 SCC OnLine Raj 6470 : (2014) 2 RLW 1585] ,

SCC OnLine Raj para 57)

“57. In the instant case, the State Government in supersession of its

earlier policy decision regarding treatment to be given to the candidates

belonging to reserved category who are selected against unreserved

category vacancies, issued directives for guidance to the appointing

26

authorities vide the Circular dated 11-5-2011 that neither changed the

eligibility criteria seeking employment nor manner and method of

selection of suitable candidates and in our considered view, the Circular

dated 11-5-2011 did not change rules of the game after the game is

played or process of selection is initiated as observed by the learned

Single Judge [Madan Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2012 SCC OnLine Raj

1182]

,

[Manish Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 2013 SCC OnLine Raj

4100] but such policy decisions are always within realm of judicial review

and this is what the Court considered and examined policy decision of

the Government impugned.”

xxx xxx xxx

49. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered

opinion that the candidates belonging to SC/ST/BC, who had

taken relaxation of age, were not entitled to be migrated to the

unreserved vacancies; the State of Rajasthan has migrated such

candidates who have taken concession of age against the

unreserved vacancies which resulted displacement of a large

number of candidates who were entitled to be selected against the

unreserved category vacancies. The candidates belonging to

unreserved category who could not be appointed due to migration

of candidates belonging to SC/ST/BC were clearly entitled for

appointment which was denied to them on the basis of the above

illegal interpretation put by the State. We, however, also take notice

of the fact that the reserved category candidates who had taken

benefit of age relaxation and were migrated on the unreserved

category candidates, are working for more than last five years. The

reserved category candidates who were appointed on migration

against unreserved vacancies are not at fault in any manner.

Hence, we are of the opinion that SC/ST/BC candidates who have

been so migrated in reserved vacancies and appointed, should not

be displaced and allowed to continue in respective posts. On the

other hand, the unreserved candidates who could not be appointed

due to the above illegal migration are also entitled for appointment

as per their merit. The equities have to be adjusted by this Court.”

(emphasis supplied)

27

In the said case, this Court while affirming the view taken in Deepa

E.V. (Supra), held that reserved category candidates who had

availed corresponding relaxations, could not be considered on

general/unreserved vacancies.

32.Similarly, this court in Niravkumar Dilipbhai (Supra) while

considering an identical factual situation involving a circular

barring consideration of reserved category candidates on

unreserved posts observed as under –

“22. Article 16(4) of the Constitution is an enabling provision

empowering the State to make any provision or reservation of

appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of

citizens which in the opinion of the State is not adequately

represented in the service under the State. It is purely a matter

of discretion of the State Government to formulate a policy for

concession, exemption, preference or relaxation either

conditionally or unconditionally in favour of the backward

classes of citizens. The reservation being the enabling

provision, the manner and the extent to which reservation is

provided has to be spelled out from the orders issued by the

Government from time to time.

xxx xxx xxx

23. In the instant case, the State Government has framed

policy for the grant of reservation in favour of SC/ST and OBC

by the Circulars dated 21-1-2000 and 23-7-2004. The State

Government has clarified that when a relaxed standard is

applied in selecting a candidate for SC/ST, SEBC category in

the age-limit, experience, qualification, permitting number of

28

chances in the written examination, etc., then candidate of

such category selected in the said manner, shall have to be

considered only against his/her reserved post. Such a

candidate would be deemed as unavailable for consideration

against unreserved post.

xxx xxx xxx

34. There is also no merit in the submission of the learned

counsel for the appellant that relaxation in age at the initial

qualifying stage would not fall foul of the Circulars dated 29-1-

2000 and 23-7-2004. The distinction sought to be drawn

between the preliminary and final examination is totally

misconceived. It is evident from the advertisement that a

person who avails of an age relaxation at the initial stage will

necessarily avail of the same relaxation even at the final stage.

We are of the view that the age relaxation granted to the

candidates belonging to SC/ST and SEBC category in the

instant case is an incident of reservation under Article 16(4) of

the Constitution of India.”

(emphasis supplied)

The Court affirming the proposition of law stated that once

relaxation has been taken by a reserved category candidate, they

cannot be considered for unreserved vacancies. Inescapably, the

aforesaid judgement also strengthens the view taken by us

hereinabove interpreting the rules that if a reserved category

candidate takes benefit of relaxation though at initial stage, it will

effectively amount to taking relaxation even at the final stage of the

selection process because without giving relaxation to him, he was

29

not in a position to participate in the Main examination and to set

forth his claim of cadre allocation.

33.Very recently in Sajib Roy (Supra), this court had the

occasion to deal with a similar factual matrix as observed

hereunder–

“32. On an analysis of the aforecited cases, we summarise as

follows: Whether a reserved candidate who has availed

relaxation in fees/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. That

is to say, in the event there is no embargo in the recruitment

rules/employment notification, such reserved candidates who

have scored higher than the last selected unreserved

candidate shall be entitled to migrate and be recruited against

unreserved seats. However, if an embargo is imposed under

relevant recruitment rules, such reserved candidates shall not

be permitted to migrate to general category seats.

xxx xxx xxx

33. Accordingly, we hold as the respondents-writ petitioners

had availed concession of age for participating in the

recruitment process, in the teeth of office memorandum dated

01.07.1998, the High Court was wrong in applying the ratio in

Jitendra Kumar (supra) and permitting them to be considered

for appointment in the unreserved category. Consequently, we

set aside the common impugned judgment and order dated

12.10.2018 and order dated 26.02.2019 and allow the

appeals. Pending application(s) if any, stand disposed of.”

30

34.At this stage, pertinently the judgements relied upon by the

learned senior counsel for Respondent No. 1 in their support are

necessarily required to be appreciated. In Jitendra Kumar Singh

(Supra), this court while considering whether an OBC candidate

who applied exercising his option as a reserved category candidate,

would be eligible to be considered against an unreserved vacancy, if

he secures more marks than the last candidate in general category.

Nonetheless, in the said case, this court was considering the issue

in reference to instructions issued by the State of Uttar Pradesh

dated 25.03.1994 which specifically provided for migration of

reserved category candidates to unreserved vacancies despite they

having availed any facility or relaxation (like relaxation in age limit)

available to reserved category. Therefore, it is distinguishable on

facts of the present appeals.

35.In Ajithkumar P. (Supra), this Court was considering a

factual situation wherein the reserved category candidate had

availed relaxation in the preliminary examination, however, found

that the said Preliminary Examination was not having any statutory

31

basis. Therefore, this judgement is also distinguishable on facts and

will not come to rescue to the case of Respondent No. 1. As far as

Vikas Sankhala (Supra) is concerned, it involved recruitment to

the post of teachers whereby relaxation in minimum pass marks in

Teachers Eligibility Test to reserved category candidates was

granted by state government in following manner –

a.10% to persons belonging to

SC/ST/OBC/SBC/General-Women

b.15% to all women of SC/ST/OBC/SBC and

widowed /divorced women

c.20% to persons covered under PwD

Various candidates belonging to general category candidates came

before this Court in Appeal on the ground that minimum qualifying

marks with respect to TET was 60% and any relaxation thereto

meant availing relaxation pursuant to reservation and thus,

migration of such candidates who took benefit of above indicated

relaxations to the unreserved/general vacancies was impermissible.

The said appeals were allowed with following observations –

“80. Having regard to the respective submissions noted above,

first aspect that needs consideration is as to whether

32

relaxation in TET pass marks would amount to concession in

the recruitment process. The High Court has held to be so on

the premise that Para 9(a) dealing with such relaxation in TET

marks forms part of the document which relates to the

recruitment procedure. It is difficult to accept this rationale or

analogy. Passing of TET examination is a condition of

eligibility for appointment as a teacher. It is a necessary

qualification without which a candidate is not eligible to be

considered for appointment. This was clearly mentioned in the

Guidelines/Notification dated 11-2-2011. These Guidelines

pertain to conducting of TET; basic features whereof have

already been pointed out above. Even Para 9 which provides

for concessions that can be given to certain reserved

categories deals with “qualifying marks” that is to be obtained

in TET examination. Thus, a person who passes TET

examination becomes eligible to participate in the selection

process as and when such selection process for filling up of

the posts of primary teachers is to be undertaken by the State.

On the other hand, when it comes to recruitment of teachers,

the method for appointment of teachers is altogether different.

Here, merit list of successful candidates is to be prepared on

the basis of marks obtained under different heads. One of the

heads is “marks in TET”. So far as this head is concerned,

20% of the marks obtained in TET are to be assigned to each

candidate. Therefore, those reserved category candidates who

secured lesser marks in TET would naturally get less marks

under this head. We would like to demonstrate it with an

example: Suppose a reserved category candidate obtains 53

marks in TET, he is treated as having qualified TET. However,

when he is considered for selection to the post of primary

teacher, in respect of allocation of marks he will get 20%

marks for TET. As against him, a general candidate who

secures 70 marks in TET shall be awarded 14 marks in

recruitment process. Thus, on the basis of TET marks

reserved category candidate has not got any advantage while

considering his candidature for the post. On the contrary,

“level-playing field” is maintained whereby a person securing

33

higher marks in TET, whether belonging to general category or

reserved category, is allocated higher marks in respect of 20%

of TET marks. Thus, in recruitment process no weightage or

concession is given and allocation of 20% of TET marks is

applied across the board. Therefore, the High Court is not

correct in observing that concession was given in the

recruitment process on the basis of relaxation in TET.”

(emphasis supplied)

Therefore, it is clear that the relaxations in TET marks were not

considered to be a concession. For this reason, the said judgement

is also distinguishable.

36.In the facts of the present case, the General category cut-off for

the Preliminary Examination was fixed at 267. Respondent No. 1

secured 247.18 marks. Had the Respondent No. 1 been put against

the general standard, his candidature would have been terminated

at the first stage i.e., the Preliminary Examination. His candidature

succeeded in the first stage of the examination because of the

relaxed standards allowed in the Preliminary Examination for SC

candidates i.e. 233 marks. After availing the benefit of this

relaxation for admission to the Main Examination, Respondent No.

1 cannot subsequently claim to have been selected on "General

Standard" merely due to his performance in the subsequent stages

34

surpassed the general standard. Therefore, if a candidate who has

resorted a relaxation at any stage of examination, would not fall

within the purview of the proviso to Rule 14(ii) of the Exam Rules,

2013 and in that situation, for the purpose of the applicable Policy

for cadre allocation, he would not fall within the list of candidates

selected on ‘General Standard’ claiming General Insider vacancy of

home state cadre as insider candidate..

37.In light of the above exposition of law, we are of the opinion

that in the present fact situation, the ‘General Insider’ vacancy in

Karnataka was rightfully allocated to Respondent No. 3, who

qualified the Preliminary Examination, Main Examination, and

Interview on general standard. It is needless to say, Respondent No.

1, having qualified the Preliminary Examination availing ‘relaxed

standard’, becoming eligible for the Main Examination must be

considered against the reserved vacancies only and cannot be

considered on general/unreserved vacancies for the purpose of

cadre allocation.

35

38.In our view, the High Court while affirming the judgment of

the Tribunal has glossed over Rule 1, intent of Rule 13 and intent of

proviso to Rule 13 as well as the real meaning of Rule 14 and

proviso thereto along with paragraph 9 of Policy. Therefore, the

judgments of the Tribunal and the High Court deserve to be set

aside.

CONCLUSION

39.In view of the foregoing, we hold that the Tribunal and the

High Court were not correct in interpreting the relevant provisions

of Exam Rules, 2013 and Paragraph 9 of the Policy and committed

mistake in granting the relief to Respondent No. 1. We hold that

Respondent No. 1, having availed the benefit of “Relaxed Standard”

in the Preliminary Examination, cannot be treated as a candidate

selected on "General Standard". Consequently, he is not entitled to

be allocated against the "General Insider" vacancy in the Karnataka

Cadre in place of Respondent No.3.

40.Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The impugned final

judgment and order dated 06.08.2019 passed by the High Court of

36

Karnataka at Bengaluru in Writ Petition No. 54254 of 2016 (S-CAT)

connected with Writ Petition No. 18947 of 2016 (S-CAT), affirming

the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench

dated 15.03.2016 in O.A. No. 170/00239/2015, are hereby set

aside. The notification dated 13.03.2015 issued by the MoEFCC

insofar allocating the Karnataka Cadre to Respondent No. 3 and

Tamil Nadu Cadre to Respondent No. 1 is upheld as correct in eyes

of law and without any alteration.

41.Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. There

shall be no order as to costs.

…….…………….…………J.

(J.K. MAHESHWARI)

…….…………….…………J.

(VIJAY BISHNOI)

New Delhi;

January 6, 2026.

37