Age Relaxation as a Bar to “Migration” into Unreserved Vacancies for Ex-Servicemen under Horizontal Reservation

1. Introduction

This writ petition challenged the non-inclusion of the petitioners—ex-servicemen applicants—in the shortlist of candidates called for document verification in Recruitment Advertisement No. 01/2025/NR issued by the Airport Authority of India (“AAI”) for Non-Executive Cadres (Northern Region). The petitioners had applied under the Ex-Servicemen (“ESM”) category, qualified in the computer-based test with marks of 59, 60 and 65, and argued that, since the Unreserved (“UR”) cut-off for document verification was 59, they were entitled to be treated as UR candidates on “merit” and be shortlisted.

AAI resisted the claim on a decisive eligibility premise: the petitioners were above the UR upper-age limit (30 years) and had participated only by availing ESM age relaxation. Therefore, they could not “migrate” to UR vacancies and were confined to consideration within the horizontal ESM quota.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Delhi High Court dismissed the writ petition. It held that:

• ESM reservation is horizontal, but the petitioners’ claim did not turn on horizontal-adjustment mechanics; it turned on UR eligibility and the effect of availing age relaxation.
• Where governing executive instructions treat age relaxation as a disqualifying “advantage” for UR consideration, a candidate who relies on such relaxation cannot demand consideration against UR vacancies, even if their marks exceed those of some UR-shortlisted candidates.
• DoPT communications placed on record (including the DoPT letter dated 25th September, 2025) clarified that an ex-serviceman can be considered for a UR post only if all eligibility criteria, including age, are met without relaxation; if age relaxation is availed, consideration is confined to the ESM quota.
• Since AAI’s document verification shortlist was prepared category-wise (policy: 1.5 times vacancies), and the petitioners were in the ESM stream due to age relaxation but did not fall within the ESM shortlisting zone, no mandamus could issue.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

(a) Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, (2007) 8 SCC 78

The judgment uses Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission as the primary doctrinal anchor to explain the difference between vertical and horizontal reservations and the operational method of implementing horizontal reservations. The Supreme Court there (drawing from Indra Sawhney v. Union of India) clarified:

• Vertical reservations (SC/ST/OBC) work as separate social-category quotas.
• Horizontal reservations (women, persons with disabilities, ex-servicemen) cut across vertical categories and are implemented by adjustment/substitution within each vertical category after the main merit lists are drawn.

The Delhi High Court relied on this distinction to reject the petitioners’ “category error”: the horizontal nature of ESM reservation does not itself compel UR treatment when UR eligibility conditions (age) were met only through an ESM-linked concession.

(b) Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217

Cited through Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Indra Sawhney v. Union of India supplies the constitutional and conceptual backdrop: vertical reservation under Article 16(4) differs from special/horizontal reservations that “interlock” with vertical categories.

(c) Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P., (1995) 5 SCC 173

The court refers to Anil Kumar Gupta v. State of U.P. in explaining the mechanics of horizontal reservation implementation: fill open competition on merit, fill vertical quotas, then ensure horizontal quota adequacy by appropriate substitution from the bottom within the relevant category. The reference supports the proposition that “horizontal” speaks to adjustment methodology, not automatic UR “migration” irrespective of eligibility norms.

(d) Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors., (2010) 3 SCC 119

The petitioners leaned heavily on Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. to argue that age relaxation is merely a concession to widen opportunity and does not dilute merit; hence, once a candidate scores above the UR cut-off, they should migrate to UR.

The High Court treated this authority as context-specific, not an absolute rule, emphasizing the judgment’s own dependence on the rules/circulars involved there. This paved the way for the court’s central holding: where applicable instructions create a bar, courts will not convert “concession” into an entitlement to compete in UR as if the concession was never used.

(e) Union of India v. Sajib Roy, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1943

Cited by the petitioners to claim that, absent a specific embargo in rules/notification, meritorious reserved-category candidates may migrate to UR. The High Court distinguished the reliance by finding that in the present case an operative executive position existed (DoPT’s clarificatory letter) which explicitly treated availing age relaxation as preventing UR consideration for ex-servicemen.

(f) Rajasthan High Court v. Rajat Yadav, 2025 INSC 1503

The petitioners invoked Rajasthan High Court v. Rajat Yadav for reaffirmation of the general “merit migration” principle. The High Court drew from the same decision the limiting proposition: the migration principle applies where recruitment rules/executive instructions do not stipulate otherwise. Thus, Rajasthan High Court v. Rajat Yadav was treated as supporting the necessity to look to the governing framework rather than applying migration as a “free-floating doctrine.”

(g) Saurav Yadav v. State Of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 4 SCC 542

Relied on by AAI to emphasize that open-category competition is conditioned by meeting the general standards without category-linked relaxations. The High Court used this line of authority to support the conceptual separation between: (i) candidates who satisfy UR eligibility conditions unaided; and (ii) candidates who cross eligibility thresholds due to category-specific concessions.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

(i) The dispute was not about horizontal-adjustment mechanics; it was about UR eligibility

The court acknowledged that ESM reservation is horizontal and “cuts across” vertical categories. However, it found the petitioners’ argument misdirected: the case did not concern post-selection adjustment within vertical categories, but whether the petitioners could claim entry into the UR stream at all when their participation depended on ESM age relaxation.

(ii) “Merit” in the UR pool is not evaluated in isolation from the eligibility plane

The court’s reasoning proceeds on an “eligibility-first” logic: the UR pool is composed of candidates meeting UR criteria. If a candidate exceeds UR marks but is ineligible for UR due to age (and becomes eligible only via ESM relaxation), they are not similarly situated to UR candidates.

(iii) The executive “embargo” was decisive: DoPT’s letter dated 25th September, 2025

The court treated DoPT’s letter dated 25th September, 2025 as clarifying the governing rule for ex-servicemen:

The court also noted DoPT’s explicit acceptance of the “anomaly” asserted by petitioners: even if an ESM candidate scores higher than the last selected UR candidate, they may still not be appointed against UR vacancies if ESM-reserved posts are filled and the candidate’s eligibility for UR depends on age relaxation.

(iv) Shortlisting for document verification could be category-wise and policy-bound

AAI justified that document verification calls are not unlimited; they are generated category-wise in a 1.5-times zone (CHRM Circular No. 34(b)/2019), causing different cut-offs for different categories at this stage. Once the petitioners were necessarily in the ESM stream, the operative question was whether they fell within the ESM shortlisting boundary—on AAI’s record, they did not.

(v) Judicial review restraint

The court emphasized that writ jurisdiction is not an appellate forum over recruitment policy. Absent ultra vires action, manifest arbitrariness, or constitutional violation, the court would not rewrite the policy choice that confines age-relaxation beneficiaries to the quota designed for them.

3.3 Impact

• Recruitment administration: The judgment strengthens the permissibility of treating “UR merit” as conditioned on meeting UR eligibility criteria without category-linked relaxations, particularly in ESM horizontal reservation recruitments.
• Litigation on “migration”: It narrows the scope of migration-based challenges by foregrounding the “rule/instruction check” before applying general migration principles discussed in decisions like Union of India v. Sajib Roy and Rajasthan High Court v. Rajat Yadav.
• Stage-specific implications: It validates category-wise shortlisting for document verification (where policy prescribes a limited calling ratio), thereby reducing challenges premised solely on comparing UR and ESM cut-offs at intermediate stages.
• Policy space for Government: By accepting DoPT’s stance, the judgment signals deference to executive structuring of horizontal reservations—especially where concessions (like age relaxation) are treated as defining the stream of competition.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

• Unreserved (UR) category: Not a “category” in the social-reservation sense; it is the open competition segment, typically limited to candidates who meet the general eligibility criteria (including age) without special relaxations.
• Vertical reservation: Reservation for social categories (SC/ST/OBC). If a reserved-category candidate is selected in open competition on general standards, they do not “consume” reserved quota.
• Horizontal reservation: Special reservations (like ex-servicemen) that apply across vertical categories. They are implemented by ensuring a minimum number within each category through adjustment/substitution.
• Migration (merit shifting to UR): The principle that a reserved-category candidate who performs well enough can be counted in UR rather than the reserved quota—but it is dependent on applicable rules/instructions. This judgment holds that availing ESM age relaxation can disable such migration.
• Age relaxation: A concession that can determine not only eligibility to apply but also the permissible “stream” of consideration. Here, it operated as a boundary: it enabled participation, but confined consideration to the ESM quota.
• Document verification shortlisting: An intermediate step. An authority may call a limited multiple of vacancies category-wise (here, 1.5 times), so cut-offs can differ between UR and ESM at this stage without implying illegality.

5. Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision crystallizes a practical rule for horizontal ESM reservations: an ex-serviceman who avails ESM age relaxation cannot claim “migration” into UR vacancies merely by scoring above the UR cut-off. The right to be considered in the UR stream is conditioned on meeting UR eligibility criteria—particularly age—without relaxation. By grounding its holding in the DoPT’s explicit position and the eligibility-first logic of open competition, the judgment limits migration claims to situations where the governing framework contains no such embargo, and it reinforces judicial restraint in re-engineering recruitment policy through writ jurisdiction.