Merit-Based Inclusion of Reserved-Category Candidates in Unreserved Vacancies: Roster as a Post-Selection Cadre Tool

1. Introduction

The Supreme Court in AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA v. SHAM KRISHNA B (2026 INSC 69, decided on 16-01-2026) examined a recurring controversy in public recruitment: whether candidates belonging to reserved categories (SC/ST/OBC), who secure selection “on their own merit” without availing relaxation/concession, may be counted against unreserved/open vacancies—and how the reservation roster is to be applied.

The dispute arose from Advertisement No. 01/SR/2013 issued by the Airport Authority of India (AAI) for Junior Assistant (Fire Service) posts (245 notified vacancies). The writ petitioner (Sham Krishna B) participated in all stages, qualified, but was not selected. After obtaining selection details under the Right to Information Act, 2005, he challenged the selection before the Kerala High Court, alleging improper application of the roster and impermissible placement of reserved-category candidates in the unreserved list, which (in his submission) displaced unreserved candidates like him.

The Kerala High Court (Single Judge; affirmed in substance by the Division Bench) accepted the challenge and directed corrective steps, including publishing rank lists and applying the model roster (1997 DoPT Office Memorandum). The Division Bench further directed appointment of the writ petitioner against a vacancy kept open.

On appeal, the Supreme Court was required to decide primarily: (i) whether reserved-category candidates who qualify on merit can be counted in the unreserved list; and (ii) whether the High Court misconceived the function and timing of the roster/reservation register.

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed AAI’s appeal (arising out of SLP(C) No. 10686 of 2020) and set aside the judgments of both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. Consequently, the direction to appoint Sham Krishna B was nullified. The connected appeal (arising out of SLP(C) No. 12937 of 2021) filed by an impleaded candidate was dismissed.

The Court held that:

  • It is settled that a reserved-category candidate who has not availed any concession/relaxation and scores at or above the unreserved cut-off must be treated as selected against an open/unreserved vacancy.
  • The Kerala High Court failed to appreciate the purpose and operational stage of the roster/reservation register: it is a post-based, administrative tool for cadre composition and identifying future recruitment points, and is not to be deployed as a parallel selection mechanism to displace merit-based placement in the unreserved list.
  • Since all 122 unreserved vacancies were filled by the top-ranked candidates on merit (including reserved-category candidates who qualified on their own merit), there was no basis to direct appointment of the writ petitioner, who scored less than the last selected unreserved candidate.

3. Analysis

3.1 Precedents Cited

(a) Mathew David v. State of Kerala & Ors., (2020) 14 SCC 577

This precedent was relied upon by the respondent primarily on delay and laches, to contend that the writ petition was filed promptly after obtaining relevant documents. The Supreme Court, however, ultimately decided the matter on the core legality of the selection method and the merit-based inclusion rule; it did not rest its conclusion on delay. The citation’s practical role in this judgment is therefore limited: it framed an argument, but did not shape the operative ratio.

(b) R.K. Sabharwal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors., (1995) 2 SCC 745

R.K. Sabharwal is the foundational authority for the post-based roster concept—reservation is applied with reference to posts in the cadre, not vacancies in an abstract sense. The respondent used it to argue that roster points must be strictly followed in filling advertised category vacancies. The Supreme Court’s reasoning is consistent with R.K. Sabharwal but clarifies its proper application: the roster is for determining and maintaining the cadre’s reserved/unreserved composition and future recruitment points, not for preventing a meritorious reserved-category candidate from being counted against an unreserved vacancy.

(c) Rajasthan High Court & Anr. v. Rajat Yadav & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 14112 of 2024 decided on 19.12.2025)

This was the decisive authority applied by the Court. The Supreme Court extensively quoted paragraphs 58–74, reaffirming that:

  • The “open/unreserved/general” category is not a caste/class quota; it is open to all based purely on merit.
  • So-called “migration” is better understood as a merit-induced placement in the open list; if a reserved-category candidate outperforms others without availing relaxation, they must be counted in the open list.
  • The roster and reservation principles must be applied in a manner that preserves equality outcomes and does not penalize merit.
  • The decision contains a caveat (para 74) about a meritorious reserved-category candidate potentially losing a preferred service/post if compulsorily treated as open; it suggests flexibility to avoid intra-category unfairness where applicable. Though not directly determinative here, it signals future adjudicatory sensitivity to preference-allocation problems.

(d) Indra Sawhney (referred to in the quoted extract)

The quoted portion attributes to Indra Sawhney the principle that reserved-category candidates can compete in the open category, and if appointed on merit, they are not counted against reserved quotas. This supports the Court’s conclusion that the High Court’s approach (restricting open vacancies to “unreserved-category persons only”) misconceived the constitutional structure of open competition.

(e) Saurav Yadav (referred to in the quoted extract)

The quoted discussion distinguishes vertical and horizontal reservation and explains “mobility/migration” from reserved to open based on merit. The Supreme Court used this to reinforce that open category is open to all, and that merit-based inclusion does not “consume” reserved quotas.

(f) Action Committee v. Union of India and Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Sanjay Kumar Singh (referred to in the quoted extract)

These cases were discussed in Rajasthan High Court & Anr. v. Rajat Yadav & Ors. in the context of “Inter-State Reservation Migration,” and were reproduced here to clarify that “migration” in reservation jurisprudence may refer to different ideas. In this case, the relevant concept was not inter-state portability, but merit-based placement in the open category.

(g) Chattar Singh (referred to in the quoted extract)

Chattar Singh was used in the quoted text to show that where recruitment rules make preliminary-test marks irrelevant for final merit, open-category accommodation is determined at the final stage. The present case was distinguished (via Rajat Yadav) because the examination structure and the substantive weight of stages can change how and when merit-based placement is assessed.

(h) Alok Kumar Pandit and Mukul Biswas v. State of West Bengal (referred to in the quoted extract)

These were cited in the caveat discussion (para 74 of Rajat Yadav) to support a fairness-preserving approach when counting a meritorious reserved-category candidate as “open” could deprive them of a preferred reserved service/post and simultaneously disadvantage more meritorious candidates within the reserved pool.

3.2 Legal Reasoning

(i) Open/Unreserved vacancies are open to all on merit

The Court treated the proposition as settled: if a reserved-category candidate qualifies without any relaxation/concession and scores at or above the unreserved cut-off, such candidate is to be placed in the unreserved/open list. The Court rejected the respondent’s core assumption that “unreserved vacancies” are earmarked exclusively for “unreserved-category persons.” The Court’s logic, anchored in constitutional equality and reaffirmed through Rajasthan High Court & Anr. v. Rajat Yadav & Ors., is that “unreserved” denotes absence of reservation—not reservation for a different class.

(ii) The roster/reservation register is not a selection list

A central corrective move in the judgment is its explanation that the roster (reservation register) is an administrative, post-based tool to:

  • ensure that representation in a cadre does not exceed lawful quota; and
  • identify the category of posts becoming available for future recruitment.

On this understanding, the Court held that the High Court erred in effectively using the roster as a mechanism to reallocate selection outcomes and to “protect” unreserved posts from merit-based inclusion of reserved-category candidates.

(iii) Application to the facts: why Sham Krishna B could not be appointed

The record showed: 245 advertised posts (122 UR, 78 OBC, 22 SC, 23 ST). Ultimately, 122 unreserved posts were filled. The respondent’s marks (128.08/225) were less than the last selected unreserved candidate, placing him outside the top 122 in the combined merit ordering relevant for UR appointment. Therefore, even if reserved-category candidates were excluded from the UR list (which the Court held would be legally wrong), the Court did not accept the premise that UR posts were to be filled “only by unreserved-category persons.”

(iv) Treatment of administrative instructions (1997 and 2014 DoPT Office Memoranda)

The High Court had relied upon the model roster under the 1997 DoPT Office Memorandum. The Supreme Court held that the Division Bench did not read the OM “in its right perspective.” The Court also noted that AAI maintained the reservation register as per the simplified format circulated vide DoPT Office Memorandum dated 23.01.2014. The thrust of the Supreme Court’s reasoning is that these OMs cannot be construed to negate the core merit principle: reserved-category candidates selected without relaxation can be placed in UR, and the roster cannot be used to override that.

3.3 Impact

  • Clarifies a frequent High Court-level misunderstanding: “Unreserved” is not a protected enclave for only “unreserved-category persons.” It is an open field determined by merit.
  • Strengthens administrative defensibility of selection lists: Recruiting bodies that place reserved-category candidates in UR based on unrelaxed merit obtain direct Supreme Court backing, reducing litigation risk premised on “UR must be filled only by UR-category persons.”
  • Re-centres the roster as a cadre-management tool: Courts are cautioned against treating the roster as a concurrent selection algorithm. This can affect challenges seeking wholesale rearrangement of completed selections through roster-based arithmetic.
  • Signals fairness-sensitive exceptions may arise elsewhere: The caveat from Rajasthan High Court & Anr. v. Rajat Yadav & Ors. (para 74) may influence future disputes involving preference allocation, service/post choices, and intra-category merit protection.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Unreserved/Open/General post: A vacancy not reserved for any category; any candidate can be appointed if they rank high enough on merit.
  • “Own merit” selection: A reserved-category candidate being selected without using relaxed standards (e.g., lower qualifying marks, age relaxation, relaxed physical standards, etc.), purely because their score is within the open cut-off.
  • Roster/Reservation register (post-based): A register showing which posts in a cadre are earmarked as reserved/unreserved over time, used to maintain representation and identify future vacancy categories. It is not a substitute for a merit list.
  • Vertical reservation: Reservation for social categories like SC/ST/OBC; vacancies are earmarked and must be filled by that category, but candidates of those categories may still enter the open list on merit.
  • Horizontal reservation: Interlocking reservation (e.g., women, persons with disabilities) that cuts across vertical categories and is adjusted within them.
  • “Migration” (in this context): A shorthand used in case-law for placing a reserved-category candidate in the open list due to merit. The Court, relying on Rajat Yadav, emphasizes the open list is open by design; merit placement should not be treated as an exceptional “shift.”
  • Delay and laches: A discretionary bar where a court refuses relief if a petitioner approaches too late. Here, while argued, the Supreme Court’s decision ultimately turned on substantive legality rather than timeliness.

5. Conclusion

The judgment decisively reinforces two linked principles: (i) open/unreserved vacancies are filled purely by merit and are open to all candidates, including reserved-category candidates who qualify without relaxation; and (ii) the reservation roster is a post-selection, post-based cadre instrument and cannot be weaponized to undo merit-based placement in the unreserved list.

By setting aside the Kerala High Court’s directions (including the appointment of Sham Krishna B), the Supreme Court aligns selection practice with the constitutional understanding of equality and affirmative action: reservation enables access, but does not convert “open competition” into a separate, exclusive category.