Domicile-Based Physical Relaxation Does Not Bar Reserved-Category Candidates from Open Merit Selection (SSC GD)
Case: AMIT KUNDAL v. UNION OF INDIA TH SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS
Court: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu
Date: 17-07-2026 (WP(C) No. 1279/2021)
1. Introduction
This writ petition arose out of recruitment under the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) Constable (GD) Examination, 2018
for posts including Constable (GD) in CAPFs/BSF and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles, allocated State/UT-wise.
The petitioners—domiciles of Jammu & Kashmir (UT) and belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC) category—cleared the written test
and qualified the PET/PST and medical stages. They nonetheless remained unselected while candidates with lower written marks
were selected in the “Open/Unreserved” slots.
The core dispute turned on the meaning and effect of “relaxed standards” under the recruitment notice:
whether the petitioners, having received physical standard relaxation (height/chest) available to Jammu & Kashmir domiciles,
must be confined to SC reserved vacancies (Para 11(xiv)), or could still be counted in unreserved vacancies on merit (Para 11(xiii)).
Key issue: Is a region/domicile-based PST relaxation (available equally to unreserved and reserved candidates)
a “relaxed standard” that forces an SC candidate to be counted only against reserved vacancies, even when no SC-specific relaxation was taken?
2. Summary of the Judgment
The High Court quashed the discriminatory approach that treated the petitioners as ineligible for unreserved selection merely because they applied
under SC and availed physical relaxations that were domicile-based and uniformly available across categories.
It held that the respondents could not invoke Para 11(xiv) to restrict the petitioners to reserved vacancies when the relaxations were not tied
to SC status. The Court found violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
As a remedial measure, the Court declined to disturb already-appointed lower-merit candidates (given five years’ service and public expenditure on training),
but directed the respondents to appoint the petitioners against available vacancies, and if unavailable, to create supernumerary posts
for their adjustment (subject to no other legal impediment), within three months.
3. Analysis
3.1 Precedents Cited
Union of India v Sajib Roy, (2025) SCC online SC 1943
The respondents relied on this decision to argue that once a reserved-category candidate qualifies using “relaxed standards,”
they must be counted against reserved vacancies irrespective of overall merit. The High Court distinguished the precedent on facts:
in Union of India v Sajib Roy, the candidate sought/used relaxation that was directly linked to the caste category (OBC),
whereas here the petitioners’ relaxations were domicile/region-based and not traceable to SC status.
Influence: The case framed the respondents’ legal position, but ultimately served as a boundary marker—clarifying that
only category-tethered relaxations attract the “count against reserved vacancies” rule.
The Court extracted and relied upon the Gauhati High Court’s reasoning that eligibility/qualifying relaxations (like height/chest) are
gatekeeping criteria for participation and do not bear a nexus to the ultimate merit ranking, which is based on performance/marks.
The passage emphasized that final rank flows from marks, not from the qualifying standard itself.
Influence: This precedent supported the conceptual separation between (i) eligibility relaxations and (ii) merit determination,
weakening the respondents’ attempt to treat domicile-based PST relaxations as a disqualifier from open merit adjustment.
Hemant Pokhriyal Vs. Staff Selection Commission and others, 2021 SCC ONLINE DEL 4591
The Delhi High Court held, in comparable circumstances, that relaxations in height/chest available to candidates from a specific region—whether reserved or unreserved—
cannot justify categorizing candidates in a manner that ignores their meritorious position vis-à-vis other categories.
Influence: It reinforced the principle that region-based relaxations are not “reserved category benefits” and cannot be used to
push otherwise-meritorious reserved-category candidates out of unreserved vacancies.
The Supreme Court’s approach—directing appointment of wrongly excluded candidates against existing vacancies, and creation of supernumerary posts if vacancies are unavailable—
was applied as the remedial template. The High Court used it to balance competing equities: correcting illegality without unsettling long-settled appointments and public expenditure.
Influence: It anchored the remedy: “make the petitioner whole” while minimizing collateral disruption.
3.2 Legal Reasoning
-
Textual reading of the notice (Paras 11(xiii) & 11(xiv)):
Para 11(xiii) mandates that SC/ST/OBC/Ex-Servicemen selected on merit without relaxed standards be adjusted against unreserved vacancies.
Para 11(xiv) applies when qualification is on “relaxed standards” (age/height/chest etc.)—in that event, the candidate must be counted against reserved vacancies.
-
Crucial classification—relaxation “because of category” vs “because of domicile”:
The Court examined the PST rules and found that the reduced height/chest benchmarks were available to
“candidates belonging to the States of Assam, Himachal Pradesh and Jammu & Kashmir” and certain groups (Dogras, etc.),
not to SC candidates as SC. Therefore, the petitioners received no SC-linked advantage.
-
Failure of the State to justify differential treatment:
The respondents could not show that petitioners received any relaxed standard “beyond those generally available”
to candidates outside reserved categories. On that footing, confining petitioners to reserved vacancies merely because they applied as SC
was held impermissible.
-
Constitutional invalidity (Articles 14 and 16):
The Court held that the respondents’ distinction effectively made SC status a disadvantage, producing discriminatory outcomes:
candidates with lower marks were selected in unreserved slots while higher-mark petitioners were excluded.
-
Equitable, prospective-corrective remedy:
While recognizing that lower-merit appointments would ordinarily be set aside, the Court declined to oust incumbents after five years
and directed appointment of petitioners via available or supernumerary posts.
3.3 Impact
-
Doctrinal clarification in SSC/CAPF recruitment:
A domicile/region-based physical standard relaxation (available across categories) is not to be treated as a reserved-category “relaxed standard”
for the purpose of denying open merit adjustment.
-
Administrative consequence:
Recruiting bodies must precisely attribute the source of a relaxation (category-based vs region-based) before applying “count against reserved vacancies” rules.
Mechanical application risks constitutional challenge.
-
Litigation & remedy trend:
The judgment exemplifies a “non-displacement + supernumerary adjustment” remedy in long-settled selections, likely to be invoked in future
where illegality is established but undoing appointments would be harsh.
4. Complex Concepts Simplified
-
Unreserved/Open Merit vacancy: A seat filled purely by rank/merit, not earmarked for any reserved category.
Reserved-category candidates can also occupy these if they qualify under the same standards and rank high enough.
-
Reserved vacancy: A seat earmarked for a protected category (e.g., SC). These are filled from eligible candidates of that category,
typically after open merit positions are filled.
-
Relaxed standards: Lowered eligibility thresholds (e.g., age/height/chest) that allow participation/qualification. Under many schemes,
if a candidate uses a relaxation meant exclusively for a reserved category, the candidate is counted against reserved seats.
-
Domicile/region-based relaxation: A relaxation available because of geography (e.g., candidates from Jammu & Kashmir),
and crucially, available to both reserved and unreserved candidates from that region. The Court treated this as not being a “caste benefit.”
-
Cut-off: The minimum score of the last selected candidate in a list/category. The petitioners showed they exceeded unreserved cut-offs.
-
Supernumerary post: An additional post created temporarily (over and above sanctioned strength) to accommodate a person without dislodging others,
often used as an equitable remedy after unlawful exclusion.
5. Conclusion
The High Court’s central contribution is a clear operational rule for public recruitment:
when a candidate’s “relaxation” is domicile/region-based and equally available to all categories, it cannot be treated as a reserved-category relaxed standard
to deny the candidate adjustment against unreserved vacancies on merit.
By locating the illegality both in the recruitment notice’s correct interpretation and in Articles 14 and 16, the judgment strengthens merit-based
open competition while preserving the integrity of reservation—ensuring that reservation does not paradoxically penalize reserved-category candidates.
Its remedial approach, following Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan, also reflects a pragmatic balance:
correcting injustice without destabilizing settled appointments through the creation of supernumerary posts where needed.