3.1 Precedents Cited
The petitioners invoked this decision to argue that reserved-category candidates who benefit from relaxed standards should not occupy unreserved posts. The High Court, however, read Sahim Hossain differently. It noted that the co-ordinate Bench there examined the issue through the lens of the governing legal framework for West Bengal and emphasized the absence of a prohibition akin to that in some other jurisdictions.
The present Court extracted and relied on the proposition that, in West Bengal, absent a specific bar, reserved-category candidates may be considered merit-wise in the unreserved category even after taking statutory relaxations, and that the Tribunal in Sahim Hossain erred by reading in a prohibition not found in the applicable framework.
Influence on the decision: The Court used Sahim Hossain to reinforce that the permissibility of “migration” to unreserved vacancies is framework-dependent and not subject to a blanket disqualification rule.
(b) UNION OF INDIA v. G. KIRAN and Others (SLP (c) No. 4743 of 2020; judgment dated 06.01.2026)
The petitioners also relied on the Supreme Court decision in UNION OF INDIA v. G. KIRAN and Others to contend that once relaxation is availed, a reserved-category candidate cannot claim an unreserved vacancy.
The High Court carefully distinguished the ratio: in G. Kiran, the Supreme Court interpreted specific examination rules and a policy clause that expressly conditioned allocation to unreserved vacancies on selection by “General Standard” without availing “Relaxed Standard.” Thus, the Supreme Court’s conclusion turned on express policy/rule text in that recruitment regime.
Influence on the decision: G. Kiran was treated as authority for the principle that the outcome hinges on the applicable rules/policy; it did not lay down a universal rule applicable irrespective of the governing scheme.
Synthesis by the High Court: Both cited cases supported a single methodological point: courts must decide migration/relaxation disputes by conjointly reading the governing scheme, rules, and policy. Applying that method here, the Court found no bar to reserved candidates being placed in unreserved slots on aggregate merit.
3.2 Legal Reasoning
(i) The “aggregate merit list” defeats a stand-alone relaxation objection
The Court placed decisive weight on the recruitment “SCHEME AND SYLLABUS” published with the advertisement. It provided that the final merit list would be prepared “on the basis of the total marks obtained in the Written Examination and the Personality Test.”
Against that structure, a category-wise qualifying threshold in the personality test (referenced through the “MINUTES OF THE FULL COMMISSION MEETING…19-09-2014”) did not, in the Court’s view, automatically imply that reserved-category candidates who crossed a lower qualifying threshold were legally barred from being ranked in the unreserved list.
The Court’s core move is conceptual: it treated the qualifying marks difference as a screening/eligibility feature for the personality test (or its qualifying component), while the final inter se ranking was determined by aggregate score, which applied across candidates.
(ii) No “universal” disqualification rule; the governing instrument must contain the bar
The Court rejected the petitioners’ attempt to generalize from Sahim Hossain and G. Kiran. It held that neither decision establishes that “in every case” any relaxation availed by a reserved-category candidate necessarily bars consideration against unreserved vacancies. The decisive question is whether the applicable recruitment scheme/rules/policy contains such a prohibition.
On the record, the Court found that the relevant scheme here did not provide any such bar, and therefore the PSC was justified in preparing the final list by aggregate merit and allowing reserved-category candidates with higher aggregate marks to occupy unreserved slots.
(iii) Non-joinder of necessary parties and cascading consequences
Even assuming arguendo that the petitioners’ grievance had substance, the Court held that the relief sought—moving 55 selected reserved-category candidates out of the unreserved list—could not be granted because those 55 persons were not impleaded. This is framed as both a procedural and substantive obstacle:
-
Audi alteram partem: adverse orders affecting selected candidates cannot be passed behind their back.
-
Cascading displacement: reclassification of 55 candidates would push out others already selected under reserved quotas, requiring reworking the entire result and hearing a wider group—making the relief structurally incompatible with the pleadings and party array.
(iv) PSC’s jurisdiction is vacancy-report dependent; courts will not compel inclusion of unreported vacancies
On the second issue, the Court accepted the PSC’s contemporaneous-record explanation that the three departments in question had not reported vacancies at the relevant time. The Court then articulated a separation-of-functions rationale: the Government decides what vacancies to report (administrative exigencies, finance, infrastructure), and the PSC advertises and selects against what is reported.
Therefore, even if vacancies “existed” in some abstract sense, the petitioners had no enforceable right to compel their inclusion in this completed recruitment process.
(v) The “hardship” remedy is not a substitute for entitlement by merit and vacancy
The Court declined to order appointment/consideration against unspecified “other vacancies” without disturbing selected candidates, citing lack of demonstrated merit entitlement (e.g., being next-in-line) and the closure of the process (last recommendations made on 09.10.2018).