The Delhi High Court held that ex-servicemen candidates who avail age relaxation in a recruitment process cannot claim consideration against unreserved posts, even if they secure marks higher than those shortlisted in the unreserved category. The bench, presided over by Justice Sanjeev Narula, heard a writ petition filed by ex-servicemen candidates challenging their exclusion from the list of candidates called for document verification in a recruitment exercise conducted by the Airport Authority of India for non-executive cadres. The petitioners had applied under the ex-servicemen category and had participated in the selection process by availing the age relaxation available to them. Despite obtaining marks that exceeded those of some candidates shortlisted under the unreserved category, they were excluded from consideration for unreserved vacancies. They contended that their higher merit entitled them to be treated on par with unreserved candidates and therefore to be considered against unreserved vacancies.
In rejecting the petition, the High Court emphasised that eligibility for unreserved posts must be established independently, without reliance on any relaxation or concession that is exclusively available to a reserved group. The court noted that the ex-servicemen in the present case were able to participate in the recruitment process only by virtue of the age concession granted to them, a benefit that was not available to general category candidates. Consequently, allowing such candidates to be counted against unreserved vacancies would disrupt the intended distribution of posts and undermine the purpose of carving out a limited horizontal quota for ex-servicemen, which serves as a specific rehabilitative measure for those who have served in the armed forces. The bench observed that if a candidate’s entry into competition depends on a concession that the unreserved pool cannot access, the level playing field is no longer the same, and the candidate should not be treated as if eligible for unreserved vacancies on the basis of higher marks.
The court further clarified that a candidate who relies on a category-linked relaxation to cross the eligibility barrier cannot simultaneously insist on being treated as an unreserved candidate for the purpose of being called against unreserved vacancies. It held that the horizontal nature of the ex-servicemen reservation does not neutralise this restriction. The court’s reasoning aligned with executive instructions issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, which provide that while the reservation for ex-servicemen operates horizontally across categories, an ex-serviceman can be considered for an unreserved post only if all eligibility criteria, including age, are met without availing any relaxation. On this basis, the Court dismissed the writ petition, reaffirming that candidates availing age concession cannot insist on being treated as eligible for unreserved vacancies even if their marks exceed the merit thresholds for those posts.
The High Court’s decision underscores the principle that recruitment processes must respect the conditions of eligibility as laid down in the governing rules and that relaxations cannot be used to secure advantages in categories for which such concessions are not designed. It reflects a consistent judicial approach limiting the entitlement of candidates who benefit from age or other relaxations to seek placement against unreserved vacancies in recruitment processes where eligibility standards for general positions are clearly defined and cannot be met by relying on category-specific concessions.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.