The Supreme Court has set aside the Kerala High Court’s decision in a case concerning the inclusion of a reserved category candidate in the unreserved list on the basis of merit, holding that if a reserved category candidate is selected purely on merit without availing any concession, such candidate must be treated as belonging to the unreserved category. Such candidates cannot be adjusted against the reserved quota.
The Court emphasised that,
“It is now a settled proposition of law that a candidate belonging to reserve category who has scored marks higher than the cut off marks for the General Category is to be treated as having qualified against an open or unreserved vacant post. In the present case, no concession or relaxation was extended to the reserve category candidates who have been appointed on their own merit against the posts meant for the General Category candidates as they have scored more marks than the General Category candidates in the selection process.”
The aforesaid order was passed by a Division Bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma while allowing the appeal filed by the Airports Authority of India (AAI).
As per the facts of the case, the Airports Authority of India had issued an advertisement in 2013 for recruitment to 245 posts of Junior Assistant (Fire Service). Of these, 122 posts were earmarked for the unreserved category, 78 for OBC, 22 for SC and 23 for ST categories. After completion of the selection process, appointments were made to 158 candidates. Several reserved category candidates, without availing any relaxation or concession, secured higher marks than general category candidates and were consequently selected in the unreserved list.
Sham Krishna B., whose name did not figure in the final selection list, assailed the recruitment process and the application of the roster by instituting a writ petition before the Kerala High Court. The learned Single Judge, and subsequently the Division Bench, held the appointment process to be vitiated and issued directions for the appointment of the writ petitioner.
Before the Supreme Court, the principal issues for consideration were:
1. Whether a reserved category candidate, selected on merit without availing any relaxation, can be adjusted against an unreserved category post.
2. Whether the roster can be used during the selection process to displace merit-based selection.
On behalf of the Authority, the learned Additional Solicitor General argued that it is a well-settled principle of law that a reserved category candidate who finds a place in the merit list prepared for general category candidates on the basis of merit must be treated as a general category candidate.
It was contended that the Kerala High Court erred both in law and on facts in directing appointment of the first respondent (Sham Krishna B). It was further contended that the reservation register or roster is merely an administrative, post-based mechanism intended to reflect the cadre composition and indicate reservation points for future recruitment, and does not constitute a parallel mode of selection.
The learned Additional Solicitor General, appeared on the behalf of appellant also submitted that the writ petition, having been instituted after completion of the entire selection process, was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone.
Refuting these submissions, counsel for the respondent argued that the writ petition was not barred by delay and laches and was filed promptly after obtaining relevant documents. It was contended that the recruitment rules were not properly followed and that inclusion of all reserved category candidates in the general category list was void, illegal and contrary to law.
After considering the rival submissions of the parties, the Supreme Court concluded that,
“The Appellant Authority has justified its stand in shifting reserve category candidates towards the list of unreserved category candidates as they have obtained marks more than the candidates belonging to unreserved category or at par with the candidates belonging to unreserved category candidates.”
The Court reiterated that the unreserved category is open to all and is not confined to any particular class. If a reserved category candidate secures marks higher than the general category cut-off without availing any relaxation, such candidate must be treated as an unreserved candidate.
The Court further clarified that the roster and reservation register are administrative tools meant to determine cadre composition after selection and future vacancies, and cannot be used to displace candidates selected purely on merit. It held that the High Court had failed to appreciate the roster and the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum dated 02.07.1997 in their correct perspective, leading to erroneous directions.
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the orders passed by the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court. It held that all unreserved category posts had already been filled strictly in accordance with merit and, therefore, no direction for appointment of the respondent or any other candidate was warranted. The appeal filed by the Airports Authority of India was allowed, while the connected appeal was dismissed.
Case: Airport Authority of India & Ors. vs Sham Krishna B & Ors.
Date of Order: 16.01.2026
See Order: Airport Authority of India & Ors. vs Sham Krishna B & Ors.
