Reserved-to-Unreserved Migration Clarified: Express Embargo in Recruitment Rules Prevails; Physical-Standards Variations Are Not “Relaxed Standards” Under DoPT OMs

Reserved-to-Unreserved Migration Clarified: Express Embargo in Recruitment Rules Prevails; Physical-Standards Variations Are Not “Relaxed Standards” Under DoPT OMs

Introduction

In Railway Protection Force v. Prem Chand Kumar (2025 INSC 1083), the Supreme Court of India delivered a reportable judgment that resolves two frequently litigated questions in public employment:

  • When can a Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST), or Other Backward Class (OBC) candidate, who has availed some relaxations, be appointed against an unreserved (UR) vacancy because they scored higher than the last UR selectee?
  • Do category- or gender-specific physical standards (such as height) constitute a “relaxed standard” that prevents such migration under the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memoranda (OMs)?

The decision resolves two civil appeals heard together: one arising from recruitment to ancillary posts in the Railway Protection Force (RPF), and the other from the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination (LDCE) for Assistant Commandant (Executive) in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). The respondents in the first appeal were SC/ST/OBC candidates who participated as reserved-category applicants and sought appointment in the UR category on the basis of higher marks. The appellant in the second appeal was a general-category candidate who challenged the placement of an ST candidate in the UR list on the ground that the ST candidate benefited from a lower height standard.

At the heart of both disputes is the doctrine of “migration” to the UR category: a rule that, ordinarily, reserved-category candidates who attain higher merit should not be counted against reserved quotas. The judgment provides a nuanced, rule-sensitive clarification: if the governing recruitment rules impose an express embargo on migration after availing specified relaxations, that embargo binds; but where the governing instructions are the DoPT OMs, the phrase “relaxed standard” does not include differences in physical standards like height unless an explicit rule so provides.

Summary of the Judgment

  • Appeal involving RPF ancillary recruitment (SLP (C) No. 20866/2019): Allowed. The Court set aside the High Court’s direction that certain reserved-category candidates be appointed in the UR category. It held that Revised Directive No. 29 (dated 06.12.2013) applied Standing Order No. 85 (05.03.2009) to ancillary recruitment, and Paragraph 14(f) of Standing Order 85 expressly bars migration to UR if a reserved candidate availed relaxation in age, physical measurements, or qualifying marks in the written test. Where Standing Order 78 (21.02.2008) allowed migration (para 14(b)), it stood partially modified and overridden to the extent of conflict by Standing Order 85. The High Court also overlooked that some writ petitioners did not meet the UR cut-off or did not qualify the trade test.
  • Appeal involving CISF LDCE (SLP (C) No. 28469/2019): Dismissed. The Court upheld the High Court in holding that the DoPT OMs dated 01.07.1998 and 04.04.2018 do not treat category/gender-based physical standards (like height) as a “relaxed standard.” The OMs’ embargo applies to relaxations of the eligibility/assessment kind (age, experience, educational qualification, number of attempts, extended zone of consideration), not to physical standards tailored by gender or ethnicity. Therefore, an ST candidate who met the lower height norm applicable to the ST category could still be counted against a UR seat if his overall merit exceeded the UR cut-off and no express rule barred such migration.

Key Facts and Procedural Background

Part I: RPF Ancillary Recruitment

  • Employment Notice No. 1/2013 (06.12.2013) invited applications for 659 (later 763) ancillary posts in the RPF/RPSF, with age and physical measurement criteria. SC/ST/OBC candidates were eligible for age relaxations and concessional physical standards. Clause 4(d)(v) clarified that no age relaxation was allowed to SC/ST/OBC candidates applying against UR vacancies.
  • Selection comprised a written examination (UR cut-off 35%, SC/ST 30%), Physical Efficiency Test (PET), Physical Measurement Test (PMT), and a qualifying trade test (minimum 50%).
  • Litigation in Gauhati High Court led to exclusion of certain vacancies. Ultimately, 400 candidates were empanelled; some writ petitioners were not, for reasons including failure in trade test, failure to meet cut-offs, or lack of vacancy.
  • High Court directed that reserved-category writ petitioners who scored above the UR cut-off be appointed in UR category, relying on Standing Order 78 (para 14(b)) which allows such migration.

Part II: CISF LDCE (Assistant Commandant, 2017)

  • A general-category candidate scored 363, marginally below the UR cut-off (364). A Scheduled Tribe candidate scored 366 and was included against a UR seat. The ST candidate satisfied the ST-specific height standard (162.5 cm minimum; measured 163 cm) but fell short of the UR/SC height standard (165 cm).
  • The general-category applicant argued that by benefiting from a lower height standard, the ST candidate was selected on a relaxed standard and thus could not be counted against a UR vacancy as per DoPT OM dated 01.07.1998 (reiterated on 04.04.2018).
  • UPSC and Union of India clarified that physical standards vary by gender and category; these are not “relaxations” in the sense used by the OMs. The High Court agreed, and the Supreme Court affirmed.

Analysis

Precedents and Instruments Cited

  • Standing Order No. 78 (21.02.2008)
    • Applicable to recruitment of ancillary staff in the RPF/RPSF.
    • Para 14(b) allowed SC/ST/OBC candidates to be selected against UR vacancies if they entered the general merit list by securing higher marks.
  • Standing Order No. 85 (05.03.2009)
    • Framed for recruitment of Constables in RPF.
    • Para 14(f): Only SC/ST/OBC candidates selected “purely on merit without availing any relaxation in age, physical measurements and qualifying marks in written test” shall not be counted against reserved vacancies (i.e., they can be counted against UR). This, by plain reading, bars migration to UR where such relaxations have been availed.
  • Revised Directive No. 29 (06.12.2013)
    • Applied the procedure of Standing Order 85 to recruitment of RPF ancillary posts, “in partial modification” of Standing Order 78 (and certain earlier directives), with specified changes (notably, a qualifying trade test).
    • The Court construed “partial modification” to mean that Standing Order 78 survives only to the extent not inconsistent with Standing Order 85; on points of conflict, Standing Order 85 prevails.
  • DoPT OMs on Migration to UR
    • OM dated 01.07.1998: SC/ST/OBC candidates selected on the “same standard” as general candidates shall not be adjusted against reserved vacancies. Where a “relaxed standard” is applied (e.g., in age limit, experience, qualification, permitted number of chances, extended zone of consideration), they are counted against reserved vacancies.
    • OM dated 04.04.2018 reiterates the above and urges strict adherence.
    • The Court endorsed the view that these OMs do not, by their text, include category/gender-based physical standards within “relaxed standard.” The phrase “etc.” is construed ejusdem generis with the listed examples (age, experience, qualification, exam attempts, zone of consideration).
  • Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of UP (2010) 3 SCC 119
    • Relied upon by the High Court in the RPF case to allow migration. The Supreme Court clarified, however, that the principle in Jitendra Kumar applies only where there is no recruitment-rule embargo against migration.
  • Union of India v. Sajib Roy (SLP (C) No. 21392-93/2019)
    • Summarizes the controlling rule: migration to UR is permissible unless an embargo exists in recruitment rules/employment notification; where such embargo exists, migration is impermissible.
    • The Court relied on Sajib Roy to hold against migration in the RPF matter due to Standing Order 85 para 14(f).
  • Deepa E.V. v. Union of India (2017) 12 SCC 680; Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. GPSC (2019) 7 SCC 383; Govt. (NCT of Delhi) v. Pradeep Kumar (2019) 10 SCC 120
    • Cases where migration was disallowed due to relaxations in upper age limit or like eligibility relaxations in light of the DoPT OM. The Court treated these precedents as distinguishable for the CISF LDCE because the dispute there involved physical standards, not age/eligibility relaxations.

Legal Reasoning

A. The RPF Appeal: “Partial Modification” and the Express Embargo

  • Textual conflict and hierarchy. Revised Directive No. 29 extends Standing Order 85 (constable recruitment) to ancillary recruitment “with changes,” and does so “in partial modification” of Standing Order 78. Where the two standing orders conflict, Standing Order 85 prevails by virtue of the later directive incorporating it as the controlling procedure.
  • Direct contradiction. Standing Order 78 para 14(b) permits migration on merit; Standing Order 85 para 14(f) denies migration if the reserved candidate availed relaxations in age, physical measurements, or qualifying marks. This is a square conflict; by the mechanism of partial modification, para 14(f) of Standing Order 85 overrides para 14(b) of Standing Order 78.
  • Rule-sensitive application of migration doctrine. Applying the principle in Sajib Roy, the Court held that migration is contingent on the governing rules: if the rules impose an embargo, migration is barred. Here, the embargo (Standing Order 85 para 14(f)) is explicit and dispositive.
  • Factual non-fulfilment by some petitioners. Beyond the legal point, the Court noted that certain writ petitioners failed to clear the UR cut-off or did not qualify the trade test—facts independently fatal to their claim to UR seats.

B. The CISF LDCE Appeal: What is a “Relaxed Standard” Under the DoPT OMs?

  • Scope of the DoPT OMs. The OMs’ embargo targets reserved candidates who are selected on a “relaxed standard,” illustrated by relaxations in age, experience, educational qualification, number of attempts, or the zone of consideration. These examples are of the “eligibility/assessment” kind.
  • Ejusdem generis construction. The word “etc.” in the OM is constrained by the genus of listed examples. Physical standards like height/weight/chest—which vary by gender and category—do not fall within that genus and are not “relaxed standards” for purposes of the OMs.
  • Administrative consistency and practical consequences. The Union of India and UPSC consistently interpret the OMs to exclude physical standards from “relaxed standards.” Accepting the contrary view would lead to anomalous results—e.g., virtually foreclosing women from UR selection in services where different male/female standards exist despite open competition, or unduly penalizing ST candidates for category-specific norms.
  • Contrast with RPF rule-set. Unlike the DoPT OMs, Standing Order 85 para 14(f) expressly includes “physical measurements” within the embargo. Hence the divergent outcomes across the two appeals are rule-driven and not contradictory on principle.

Impact and Prospective Significance

Immediate Consequences

  • RPF and similarly governed recruitments. Where Standing Order 85 (or analogous rules) governs and expressly bars UR migration upon availing relaxations in age, physical measurements, or qualifying marks, that bar holds. Reserved-category candidates who benefited from any such relaxations cannot be shifted into UR seats even if they outperform the last UR selectee.
  • CISF and other Central recruitments applying DoPT OMs. Absent an express, rule-based embargo covering physical standards, an SC/ST/OBC candidate who meets the relevant category/gender-specific physical standard and outperforms the UR cut-off remains eligible for UR selection. Physical standards do not, by themselves, constitute a “relaxed standard” under the DoPT OMs.

Broader Legal Landscape

  • Rule-centric migration doctrine. The decision reinforces that the permissibility of migration is determined foremost by the governing recruitment rules and notifications. The general pro-merit migration principle yields when an explicit embargo exists.
  • Textual precision matters. Drafters of recruitment rules must specify, with clarity, whether and which relaxations disqualify a candidate from UR migration. Express inclusion (as in “physical measurements” under Standing Order 85) will be enforced as written.
  • Gender and ethnicity-sensitive standards insulated from OM embargo. Treating physical standards as a “relaxed standard” under the OMs could undermine diversity and fairness in physically demanding services. The Court’s ejusdem generis approach avoids that result unless the rule-maker expressly provides otherwise.

Complex Concepts Simplified

  • Migration to the UR category. A practice whereby a reserved-category candidate, by scoring higher than the last UR selectee, is placed against a UR vacancy rather than being counted within the reserved quota. This preserves reserved vacancies for other eligible reserved-category candidates.
  • Embargo on migration. A rule that prevents such migration if the candidate has benefited from specified relaxations (e.g., in age or exam standards). If a recruitment rule contains such a bar, it overrides the general migration principle.
  • DoPT OMs on “same standard” vs. “relaxed standard.” The OMs allow migration if reserved candidates are selected on the same standard as general candidates. They bar migration when a “relaxed standard” is used—examples include relaxations in age, qualifications, attempts, or zone of consideration. The OMs, as interpreted here, do not include differences in physical standards within “relaxed standard.”
  • Physical standards vs. eligibility relaxations. Physical standards (height, weight, chest) often vary by gender and category to reflect physiological differences and operational needs. Eligibility relaxations (age, qualification, attempts) alter the threshold of who may compete or how success is evaluated. The Court treats these as legally distinct categories unless the rule expressly merges them (as in Standing Order 85).
  • Partial modification. An instruction that modifies an existing rule only to the extent of inconsistency. The unmodified portions continue to apply. Where a later rule (Standing Order 85) conflicts with an earlier one (Standing Order 78), the later controls in the field of conflict.
  • Ejusdem generis. A canon of interpretation: when general words follow specific ones, the general words are construed to include only items of the same kind as those specifically listed. Here, “etc.” after age, experience, qualification, attempts, and zone of consideration does not expand to physical standards.
  • Trade test, PET, PMT. Elements of selection in uniformed services: PET is a Physical Efficiency Test (running, jumps); PMT is a Physical Measurement Test (height/chest/weight). Trade test is a qualifying skills assessment specific to the ancillary trade (e.g., tailoring, cooking).

Practical Guidance

For Recruiting Agencies

  • State explicitly in the recruitment rules whether availing particular relaxations (age, physical measurements, qualifying marks) disqualifies a candidate from UR migration. Ambiguity fuels disputes.
  • Where relying on the DoPT OMs, remember that physical standards are not, by default, “relaxed standards.” If you intend otherwise, adopt a clear, express rule akin to Standing Order 85 para 14(f).
  • Ensure cut-offs, qualifying tests (e.g., trade tests), and category-specific standards are communicated transparently and applied consistently.

For Candidates

  • If you availed relaxations in age, physical measurements, or qualifying marks, check whether the governing recruitment rules contain an express bar on UR migration. If they do, higher merit will not enable UR placement.
  • When rules are silent and DoPT OMs apply, category/gender-based physical standards do not, by themselves, prevent UR migration if you meet the UR merit threshold and other eligibility criteria.
  • Always review whether you meet all qualifying components (e.g., trade test). Failure at any stage can be dispositive regardless of overall marks.

Conclusion

This judgment delivers two complementary clarifications that will shape recruitment litigation and administration across uniformed and civil posts:

  • Migration of reserved-category candidates to the unreserved category is governed by the applicable recruitment framework. Where the framework imposes an explicit embargo—such as Standing Order 85 para 14(f) in the RPF context—migration is barred if the candidate has availed relaxations in age, physical measurements, or qualifying marks.
  • Under the DoPT OMs, “relaxed standards” refer to eligibility and assessment relaxations (age, experience, qualifications, exam attempts, zone of consideration). Category- or gender-specific physical standards are not “relaxed standards” unless expressly declared so by the governing rules. Consequently, absent such a rule, a reserved-category candidate who meets category-specific physical standards and surpasses UR merit thresholds can be placed against a UR seat.

The Court harmonizes fairness to merit with fidelity to textual rule-making: merit-based migration remains the baseline, but it yields to precise, express embargoes in recruitment rules. Simultaneously, the Court preserves sensible inclusion by declining to treat physical standards as “relaxations” under the DoPT OMs, avoiding a result that would unintentionally marginalize women or certain ethnic groups in physically screened services.

Going forward, the message is clear: rule drafters must speak precisely; administrators must apply the correct rule-set; and candidates must locate their rights within the specific text that governs their recruitment—not within generalized expectations about migration on merit.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Supreme Court Of India

Judge(s)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOYMALYA BAGCHI

Comments