UNION OF INDIA & ORS. versus SAJIB ROY

Citation: [2025] 9 S.C.R. 542 · Decided: 09-09-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 9 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 9 S.C.R. 542 : 2025 INSC 1084
Union of India & Ors. 
v. 
Sajib Roy
(Civil Appeal No. 11718 of 2025)
09 September 2025
[Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Issue arose as regards the correctness of the order by the High 
Court permitting the respondents who had applied as reserved 
candidates in OBC category after having availed age relaxation 
for the post of Constable, to be considered for recruitment under 
unreserved category.
Headnotes†
Service law – Recruitment – Appointment of OBC candidate 
to unreserved candidate – Permissibility – Recruitment of 
Constables – OBC candidates availed age relaxation for 
participation in the recruitment process, however, declared 
unsuccessful as they had scored marks lower than the last 
selected candidate in the OBC category, but their marks were 
higher than the last selected candidate in the unreserved 
category – OBC candidates sought migration to the unreserved 
category – High Court held that the writ petitioners-OBC 
candidates who had applied as reserved candidates in OBC 
category after having availed age relaxation for the post 
of Constable (GD) to be considered for recruitment under 
unreserved category – Correctness:
Held: 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 – 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 
* Author
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 
543
Union of India & Ors. v. Sajib Roy
seats – 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 which clearly barred 
such migration in the event the reserved candidates had availed 
relaxations in age, experience qualification, etc, the High Court 
erred in applying the ratio in Jitendra Kumar’s case wherein by 
virtue of the government instructions dated 25.03.1994 expressly 
permitted reserved candidates who have availed relaxation in fees/
upper age limit etc. to be considered for appointment in unreserved 
category – Thus, the impugned judgment and order by the High 
Court set aside. [Paras 32, 33]
Case Law Cited
Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr v. State of UP & Ors. [2010] 1 SCR 
325 : (2010) 3 SCC 119 – distinguished.
Haryana Financial Corporation & Anr v. Jagdamba Oil Mills & Anr. 
[2002] 1 SCR 621 : (2002) 3 SCC 496; Deepa E. V. v. Union of 
India & Ors. [2017] 1 SCR 938 : (2017) 12 SCC 680; Gaurav 
Pradhan & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. [2017] 8 SCR 951 : 
(2018) 11 SCC 352; Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujarat 
Public Service Commission & Ors. [2019] 9 SCR 47 : (2019) 7 
SCC 383; Government (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar & 
Ors. [2019] 13 SCR 1056 : (2019) 10 SCC 120; Vikas Sankhala 
& Ors. v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors. [2016] 7 SCR 639 : (2017) 
1 SCC 350; Saurav Yadav & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors. [2020] 11 
SCR 281 : (2021) 4 SCC 542; Ajithkumar P. & Ors. v. Remin K. R. 
& Ors. (2015) 16 SCC 778; Sadhana Singh Dangi & Ors. v. Pinki 
Asati & Ors. (2022) 12 SCC 401; Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited 
& Anr. v. Sandeep Chaudhary & Ors. [2022] 4 SCR 1002 : (2022) 
11 SCC 779 – referred to.
Quinn v. Leathem [1901] AC 495 (HL) – referred to.
List of Acts
Constitution of India.
List of Keywords
Reserved candidates; OBC category; Age relaxation; Post of 
Constable; Recruitment; Unreserved category; Jitendra Kumar’s 
case; Office memorandum dated 01.07.1998; Migration of reserved 
candidates; Concessions in the form of age relaxation; Appointment 
544
[2025] 9 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
in unreserved category; Recruitment process; Last selected 
candidate; Migration to unreserved category; Recruitment rules/
employment notification; General category; Government instructions 
dated 25.03.1994.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11718 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.10.2018 and 26.02.2019 
of the High Court of Tripura at Agarthala in WP(C) No. 281 of 2017 
and RP No. 04 of 2019
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 11720

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.