Introduction

In Union of India v. Sajib Roy, the Supreme Court of India (Joymalya Bagchi, J., with Surya Kant, J. concurring) settled a recurring controversy in public recruitment: whether candidates belonging to reserved categories (SC/ST/OBC) who receive certain relaxations (such as age relaxation) may, if they score higher than the last selected general (unreserved) candidate, be counted against unreserved vacancies. The Court held that such “migration” is not a universal right grounded in general principles of merit or equality; rather, it depends squarely on the governing recruitment rules or executive instructions. Where those rules impose an embargo on migration for candidates who availed relaxations, migration is impermissible.

The litigation stemmed from recruitment by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) to Constable (GD) posts in various central armed police forces and related organizations. The respondents, all OBC candidates who had availed the 3-year age relaxation, failed to secure selection in the OBC quota but scored higher than the last unreserved candidates. The High Court allowed them to be considered as unreserved candidates by invoking the Supreme Court’s earlier decision in Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. (2010). On appeal, the Union of India relied on the Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum (OM) dated 01.07.1998, which expressly bars counting reserved candidates who availed a relaxed standard (including age relaxation) against unreserved vacancies.

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s decision, articulating a clear conditional rule: migration is permitted only if the operative recruitment scheme does not forbid it; if there is an express bar, migration cannot be claimed.

Summary of the Judgment

• The respondents (OBC candidates) had availed age relaxation to participate in SSC recruitment for Constable (GD). They failed to secure selection in the OBC category but had higher marks than the last selected general category candidates in some forces.
• The High Court allowed their consideration in the unreserved category, primarily relying on Jitendra Kumar Singh (2010) which viewed age and fee relaxations as not disturbing the “level playing field.”
• On review, the Union produced DoPT OM dated 01.07.1998. The High Court nevertheless refused to alter its view.
• The Supreme Court distinguished Jitendra Kumar Singh as a decision grounded in a different statutory and executive framework (the U.P. 1994 Act and a 25.03.1994 instruction) which expressly permitted migration even after relaxations; by contrast, the central DoPT OM dated 01.07.1998 places a bar on migration wherever a relaxed standard (e.g., age relaxation, additional attempts, extended zone of consideration) has been applied.
• Reiterating Deepa E.V. v. Union of India (2017), Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan (2018), Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana (2019), and Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Pradeep Kumar (2019), the Court held that the permissibility of migration depends on the recruitment rules. With an express embargo like the DoPT OM, migration is not permissible.
• Holding that the respondents participated without challenging the OM, and that the governing scheme barred migration, the Supreme Court allowed the Union’s appeals and set aside the High Court’s orders.

The Court’s crystallized rule: Whether reserved category candidates who availed relaxations may be recruited against unreserved vacancies depends on the recruitment rules. If there is no embargo, migration is permissible when they score higher than the last unreserved candidate; if there is an express bar, migration is impermissible.

Detailed Analysis

1. Precedents Cited and Their Influence

The judgment carefully surveys precedent, distinguishing between general observations about merit and level playing field, and rules-bound outcomes dictated by the particular recruitment scheme in issue.

• Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 119
  Context: The U.P. Public Services (Reservation for SC, ST, and OBC) Act, 1994 and a Government Instruction dated 25.03.1994 explicitly permitted reserved candidates who availed relaxations (including age) to be adjusted against unreserved vacancies if they succeeded on merit in open competition.
  Influence: The Supreme Court underscores that its general statements in Jitendra Kumar about age/fee concessions not upsetting the level playing field were applied within a scheme that expressly allowed migration. Therefore, Jitendra Kumar is not a universal principle; it is contingent on the governing rules.
• Deepa E.V. v. Union of India, (2017) 12 SCC 680
  Context: Construed the same DoPT OM dated 01.07.1998. Held that Jitendra Kumar’s principle cannot apply where an express bar exists. If candidates have availed relaxations (e.g., age), they are counted against reserved vacancies and cannot claim unreserved seats.
  Influence: Provides direct support for the outcome in Sajib Roy; confirms that the DoPT OM creates an operative embargo under central recruitment.
• Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 11 SCC 352
  Context: A state circular imposed an embargo on migration after relaxations. Court confined Jitendra Kumar to its statutory context; where rules bar migration, candidates cannot migrate to the general category.
  Influence: Reinforces the rule-based approach.
• Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. GPSC, (2019) 7 SCC 383 and Govt. (NCT of Delhi) v. Pradeep Kumar, (2019) 10 SCC 120 (three-judge bench)
  Influence: Affirm the principle that migration hinges on the applicable rules; with an express embargo, migration is not permitted.
• Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal, (2017) 1 SCC 350
  Context: Relaxation related to the qualifying marks in TET for eligibility; final recruitment scoring awarded 20% of actual TET marks uniformly to all. Thus, relaxed eligibility did not translate into advantage in the selection scoring.
  Influence: The Court highlights that in such a scheme, migration could be allowed as there was no effective relaxation in the selection process (and earlier circulars did not prohibit migration). It is consistent with the rule-based approach: migration may be permitted where the governing framework either allows it or the relaxation does not affect selection standards.
• Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P., (2021) 4 SCC 542
  Context: Interplay of vertical (social) and horizontal (women) reservations; migration of women belonging to reserved social categories to open/women seats. Migration allowed because no rule barred such adjustment, and candidates had not availed any special benefit disqualifying them from open category.
  Influence: Supports the proposition that absent an embargo, migration may be warranted, especially to prioritize merit in open seats.
• Sadhana Singh Dangi v. Pinki Asati, (2022) 12 SCC 401
  Context: Horizontal reservation among women; the Court reaffirmed prioritizing merit and allowed migration in the given framework.
  Influence: Again, consistent with the “no-embargo → migration permitted” strand.
• BSNL v. Sandeep Chaudhary, (2022) 11 SCC 779
  Context: Cut-offs were reduced for both OBC and general candidates; no special concession to OBC candidates in selection standards. OBC candidates who scored higher than the last general candidate were allowed to occupy unreserved seats.
  Influence: Illustrates that where the scheme does not create a relaxed selection standard for reserved candidates, migration can be permissible.
• Haryana Financial Corporation v. Jagdamba Oil Mills, (2002) 3 SCC 496 and Quinn v. Leathem [1901] AC 495 (HL)
  Influence: Emphasize that precedents must be read in the factual and legal context; general observations are not to be applied mechanically to dissimilar frameworks.

2. The Court’s Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s reasoning unfolds in clear steps:

• Identify the controlling recruitment instrument: The recruitment was governed by the DoPT OM dated 01.07.1998. Paragraph 3 of that OM states that when a “relaxed standard” is applied to SC/ST/OBC candidates—by way of age relaxation, experience, qualification, permitted number of attempts, extended zone of consideration, etc.—they must be counted against reserved vacancies and “shall be deemed unavailable” for unreserved vacancies.
• Distinguish Jitendra Kumar Singh: That ruling turned on the U.P. 1994 Act and an instruction that expressly permitted migration notwithstanding relaxations. Therefore, its general remarks about level playing field cannot override a contrary operative rule like the DoPT OM governing central recruitment.
• Consistency with binding precedent: The Court’s view harmonizes with Deepa E.V., Gaurav Pradhan, Niravkumar, and the three-judge bench in Pradeep Kumar, all of which locate the permissibility of migration in the specific recruitment scheme rather than in broad notions of merit alone.
• Contextual reading of precedents: Invoking Quinn v. Leathem and Jagdamba Oil Mills, the Court reiterates that judgments are authorities for what they decide in their facts and legal framework. General statements cannot be transposed to situations governed by different rules.
• Participation without demur and absence of constitutional challenge: The respondents participated in the process under the extant OM and did not challenge its validity. The Court decides the case within that framework, leaving the OM’s constitutional validity untouched.
• The synthesized rule (para 32): Migration is conditional and rules-bound. If the recruitment rules/employment notification contain no embargo, higher-scoring reserved candidates who have availed relaxations may be considered against unreserved seats. If there is an express embargo, migration is barred.

3. Impact and Prospective Significance

The decision has immediate and far-reaching implications for public recruitment, especially under central authorities that operate under DoPT instructions.

• Central recruitment under DoPT OM (01.07.1998): For SSC, UPSC-administered recruitments where the OM applies, candidates from reserved categories who availed age relaxation (or other listed relaxations) cannot claim unreserved seats. Selection authorities must count them against reserved vacancies.
• Litigation discipline and clarity: The ruling tempers reliance on broad notions of merit-based migration and channels the inquiry into the applicable recruitment scheme. It reduces inconsistent outcomes across jurisdictions by anchoring decisions in the governing rules.
• Administrative practice: Recruiting bodies should conspicuously specify in notifications whether migration is barred or permitted, and in what circumstances. Where the DoPT OM governs, the bar should be explicitly restated to avoid confusion.
• Candidates’ strategy: Aspirants must assess the applicable scheme carefully. If they seek to benefit from migration to unreserved seats on merit, they must ensure that the scheme either permits migration or that no “relaxed standard” (as defined by the scheme) was availed. Otherwise, their names will be counted against reserved slots.
• Unresolved constitutional question: The Court expressly notes that the respondents did not challenge the constitutional validity of the OM. Future litigants might test whether aspects of the OM (e.g., equating age relaxation with a relaxed selection standard) comport with Articles 14, 16(1), 16(4), and 335. Until then, the OM remains operative.
• Horizontal reservations: The judgment does not unsettle Saurav Yadav and related jurisprudence. In horizontal contexts (e.g., women, persons with disabilities), migration will still depend on the scheme. If there is no embargo, merit-based migration into open category remains permissible.

4. The Practical Rule, Simplified

The Court’s holding can be operationalized through a straightforward decision path:

• Step 1: Identify the governing recruitment rules/OM/circulars for the exam or process.
• Step 2: Ask: Do these rules contain an express embargo on counting candidates who availed relaxations against unreserved vacancies?
  • If Yes: Candidates who availed a listed relaxation (e.g., age, attempts) cannot migrate to unreserved seats.
  • If No: Migration is generally permissible when such candidates score higher than the last unreserved candidate, provided the scheme does not otherwise disqualify them.
• Step 3: Distinguish between relaxations that affect eligibility versus those that affect selection standards. Under the DoPT OM, “age relaxation,” “extended attempts,” and other listed examples are treated as triggers for the embargo.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Migration: The adjustment of a reserved category candidate, who outperforms general candidates, into an unreserved seat, so that reserved seats remain available for other reserved candidates and overall merit is respected.
• Relaxed standard: Any concession or relaxation granted to reserved candidates to enter or progress in the selection process, such as age relaxation, extra attempts, lower qualifying thresholds, or extended zone of consideration. Under the DoPT OM, if such relaxed standards are applied, the candidate is counted against reserved vacancies.
• Vertical vs. horizontal reservation: Vertical reservations address social categories (SC/ST/OBC/EWS). Horizontal reservations cut across vertical categories (e.g., women, persons with disabilities). Migration issues can differ between these two contexts, and outcomes are always scheme-dependent.
• Level playing field: A principle that once candidates enter the competition phase (written/selection), they compete on merit. Jitendra Kumar invoked this notion to allow migration in a scheme that permitted it. Sajib Roy clarifies that this notion cannot override an express scheme-based embargo.
• Participation without demur: A litigant who participates in a process under known rules, without challenging them, generally cannot seek an outcome contrary to those same rules post facto. While not a bar to constitutional challenge, it affects case-specific relief where no challenge was raised.
• Rule-centric adjudication: Courts decide migration questions by first looking at the recruitment scheme. General ideas of merit or equality are mediated through what the rules permit or forbid.

Conclusion

Union of India v. Sajib Roy establishes a precise and workable rule for migration claims in public recruitment: migration is not a universal entitlement but is contingent upon the recruitment scheme. Where rules like the DoPT OM dated 01.07.1998 impose an embargo by deeming candidates who availed relaxations as unavailable for unreserved vacancies, migration is impermissible. Conversely, where there is no embargo and the selection architecture does not grant an advantage in the scoring phase, migration may be permitted to honor merit in open competition.

This judgment harmonizes earlier authorities by placing the recruitment framework at the center of analysis, cautions against overbroad reliance on general observations from prior decisions, and offers administrative clarity to recruiting bodies and candidates alike. It leaves open, however, the constitutional scrutiny of the DoPT OM’s underlying assumptions—a question for another day. In its immediate effect, the decision brings coherence to central recruitment practices and ensures rule-bound consistency in the adjudication of migration disputes.

Key Takeaways

• Migration is conditional: permitted only if the recruitment rules do not bar it.
• DoPT OM 01.07.1998 bars migration for SC/ST/OBC candidates who availed “relaxed standards” (including age relaxation, extra attempts, etc.).
• Jitendra Kumar Singh (2010) is not a universal principle; it applied within a framework that expressly allowed migration despite relaxations.
• Deepa E.V., Gaurav Pradhan, Niravkumar, and Pradeep Kumar align with the rules-first approach and support the embargo when prescribed.
• Horizontal reservation cases like Saurav Yadav remain applicable where no scheme-based embargo exists.
• Candidates and administrators must scrutinize the governing rules before asserting or denying migration claims.