UNION OF INDIA versus G. KIRAN & ORS.

Citation: [2026] 1 S.C.R. 141 · Decided: 06-01-2026 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.K. MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2026] 1 S.C.R. 141 : 2026 INSC 15
Union of India 
v. 
G. Kiran & Ors. 
(Civil Appeal No(s). 51 of 2026)
06 January 2026
[J.K. Maheshwari* and Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
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.
Headnotes†
The Rules for a competitive examination to be held by the 
Union Public Service Commission in 2013 (Exam Rules, 2013) – 
rr.1, 13, 14(ii), 17(1) – Vacancies in the Indian Forest Service 
(IFS) – Relaxation in qualifying marks at the preliminary stage – 
Relaxation/concession obtained in ‘eligibility’ or ‘selection 
criteria’, effect in the matter of cadre allocation – Respondent 
No.1, a reserved category candidate who availed relaxation in 
the Preliminary Examination but was placed higher in merit 
than the Respondent No.3-unreserved candidate in the final 
merit list based on total marks awarded in Main Examination 
(Written) and Personality Test, claimed 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 
IFS – OA allowed by the Tribunal holding that a meritorious 
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 and 
directed to allocate the General Insider vacancy in the State of 
Karnataka to Respondent No.1, reserved category candidate – 
Writ petitions filed by Respondent No. 3 (who was allocated 
the General insider vacancy) and Union of India, dismissed by 
High Court, order of the Tribunal affirmed – Interference with:
* Author
142
[2026] 1 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Held: Once relaxation has been taken by a reserved category 
candidate, they cannot be considered for unreserved vacancies – 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 not in a position to participate in the 
Main examination and to set forth his claim of cadre allocation – 
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 r.17(1), 
Exam Rule, 2013 seeking allocation of General Insider vacancy 
in home State cadre as it would be contrary to paragraph 9 of 
the Cadre Allocation Policy – The General category cut-off for 
the Preliminary Examination was fixed at 267 – Respondent No.1 
secured 247.18 marks – Had he 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 surpassed the general standard – If a candidate who has 
resorted a relaxation at any stage of examination, would not fall 
within the purview of the proviso to r.14(ii), Exam Rules, 2013 and 
thus, 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 – Respondent No. 1, having availed the benefit 
of “Relaxed Standard” in the Preliminary Examination, cannot be 
treated as a candidate selected on “General Standard” thus, he is 
not entitled to be allocated against the “General Insider” vacancy 
in the Karnataka Cadre in place of Respondent No.3 – High Court 
while affirming the judgment of the Tribunal glossed over r.1, intent 
of r.13 and intent of proviso to r.13 as well as the real meaning of 
r.14 and proviso thereto along with paragraph 9 of Cadre Alloca

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