Friday, 2 December, 2022
HomeOpinionSupreme Court's rule for quota candidates availing age relaxation contradicts its own...

Supreme Court’s rule for quota candidates availing age relaxation contradicts its own view

The relaxations are meant to bring the reserved category candidates to a level-playing field where they can also compete in the open category.

Text Size:

A bench of two Supreme Court judges held in a recent judgment that “a candidate who has availed of an age relaxation in a selection process as a result of belonging to a reserved category, thereafter, cannot seek to be accommodated in/or migrated to the general category seat.”

This means that such reserved category candidates won’t be entitled to seats in the general category, even if they qualify the selection process with “merit”. The spirit of this judgment goes against the Supreme Court’s own views on the subject in a number of cases. And, it adds to the confusion over the selection process in government jobs and educational institutions.

This judgment goes against the constitutional understanding, under Article 16(4), of providing reserved category candidates a level-playing field by allowing them to compete in an open category.

Different cases, different views

The bench of Justices S. Abdul Nazeer and Indira Banerjee in Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana vs. Gujarat Public Service Commission has upheld the decision of a division bench of the Gujarat High Court, relying totally upon the statutory scheme in Gujarat, which expressly bars reserved category candidates from availing any sort of relaxation for selection under the general category.

Also read: 50% cap breached with Maratha reservation: Will this reignite quota politics across India?

The Supreme Court bench here has followed the precedent in Deepa EV vs. Union of India (2017), which also relied upon a similar statutory scheme of the Department of Personnel and Training, providing an express bar against reserved category candidates (having availed relaxation) for being considered under the general category.

Both Niravkumar and Deepa EV judgments differ from what the Supreme Court had said in Jitendra Kumar Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2010) case. The court had said: “If any person belonging to reserved categories is selected on the basis of merits in open competition along with general category candidates, then he will not be adjusted towards reserved category, that is, he shall be deemed to have been adjusted against the unreserved vacancies. It shall be immaterial that he has availed any facility or relaxation (like relaxation in age limit) available to reserved category.”

The judgments in Niravkumar and Deepa EV have stated that the decision in Jitendra Kumar was specifically based on the interpretation of statutory scheme in Uttar Pradesh, which did not provide express bar for reserved category candidates to be considered for posts under the general category.

In contrast, the Supreme Court’s interpretation in Niravkumar that a state government has a discretion “to formulate a policy for concession, exemption, preference or relaxation either conditionally or unconditionally in favour of the backward classes of citizens”, in effect, suggests that a policy can be made to fix the number of the general category seats by seizing the claim of the reserved category candidates even if they qualify on merit.

Also read: Dalit IAS, IRS officers say absence of quota in Modi govt lateral entry scheme is illegal

Constitution & reservation

The reasoning in Niravkumar contradicts the basic constitutional understanding of reservation system in India. In a number of judgments, the Supreme Court has itself clarified that the purpose of relaxation (age relaxation, fee concession, etc.) being provided to reserved category candidates is to merely bring them “within the zone of consideration, so that they can participate in the open competition on merit”.

The Supreme Court has also made it clear that unreserved or general category seats do not constitute a reservation for general category candidates. Such seats are open and every individual, irrespective of the category to which the person belongs, can compete on the basis of merit. A reserved category candidate can be shifted to general category on the basis of merit, but not vice-versa.

For instance, in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, a Constitution bench of the Supreme Court had held: “[It] is well to remember that the reservations under Article 16(4) do not operate like a communal reservation. It may well happen that some members belonging to, say, Scheduled Castes get selected in the open competition field on the basis of their own merit; they will not be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes; they will be treated as open competition candidates.

Also read: Subramanian Swamy was right. Modi’s lateral entry plan will make reservations irrelevant

Challenge to statutory schemes

The constitutional validity of statutory schemes, which debar reserved category candidates from claiming open seats on the basis of merit, therefore, ought to be challenged.

A hint in this regard was also provided by the Supreme Court in the Deepa EV judgment: “Be it noted, in the instant case, the appellant has not challenged the constitutional validity of the proceedings dated 1.7.1998 read with Rule 9 of the Export Inspection Agency (Recruitment) Rules, 1980… No argument was canvassed challenging the constitutional validity of the proceedings before the learned Single Judge or before the Division Bench of the High Court.

There is no concept of “fixed” open category seats under the Indian constitutional scheme. The relaxations provided are merely to bring the reserved category candidates to a level-playing field, where they can also compete in open category. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Niravkumar only adds confusion to this basic understanding.

The author is LLM postgraduate from Harvard Law School. Views are personal.

Subscribe to our channels on YouTube & Telegram

Support Our Journalism

India needs fair, non-hyphenated and questioning journalism, packed with on-ground reporting. ThePrint – with exceptional reporters, columnists and editors – is doing just that.

Sustaining this needs support from wonderful readers like you.

Whether you live in India or overseas, you can take a paid subscription by clicking here.

Support Our Journalism



  2. If any reserved categories candidates fill their caste at the time of filling application form in NEET Exam. Later on they can shift to general category if they got higher mark

  3. Let’s avoid age relxation factors, what about the eligibility criteria of some exams (say, UGC NET) where reserved category candidates have already availed reservation to qualify for the cutoffs of their own category NOT the general category. Other benefits given such as extra marks on the basis of their castes amounting to the experience they hold.
    Moreover, what about horizontal reservations that must be put into consideration. While unreserved female seats/ph seats are reserved across all the categories, Which law highlights their right to migrate to unreserved category on the basis of merit? Such interpretations often confuse and there must be a separate declaration regarding the same.

  4. Unreserved seats are not reserved for General Category candidate and any reserved category candidate qualifying on merit without availing benefit of reservation is treated as candidate selected on merit only. There is no confusion and contradiction in this regard. There is no ambiguity in legal provision, court orders and practice followed by various govt. departments.. Don’t try to create confusion and mislead people with such articles.

  5. Author should have at least once mentioned that this so-called utopian reservation system was supposed to be for only 10 years after independence.
    And given the goodness of this system why doesn’t judiciary allow reservation based selections in its own ranks??

  6. To qualify in general seat, there is an age limit. And that age limit has to be observed. No amount of obfuscation can subvert this fact. The author has just done a copy paste job without directly engaging with the central reason that I mention, probably because it is a direct corollary of the rules.

    • This is 100% true. General category has specific boundaries. Age, attempts, cutoffs etc. If u take any one benefit of category, its clear violation of equality. Since those who want relaxation are already given space through reservation, why open category rules need to be relaxed? If in IAS exam, A general category candidate has opportunity only till 6 atrmepts and 32 age. But if he a reserved candidate with 7th or 8th gets higher marks when he is 35 year old, he is entitled to get selected in his reserved category, not in general even if he is getting higher marks. If he is selected under general, it will be blatant violation of equality and social justice for open category candidates. These elitist, Lutyens intellectual fraternity need to understand social justice concept also applies to general category, not just reserved. General category people are also part of same society. Liberal class is in disdain because of such thinking today in our country. Liberal media speaks only for minorities, and other reserved sections. They don’t understand plight of middle class who don’t have any other benefit. Identify issues which are of concern to all people and put your ideas on them. Don’t be selective to some sections.

Comments are closed.

Most Popular