Legal Review and Analysis of Airport Authority of India & Ors vs Sham Krishna B & Ors 2026 INSC 69
Synopsis
This judgment settles a pivotal issue in India's reservation policy concerning public employment. The core dispute revolved around the practice of "migration" or adjustment of meritorious candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) into the "unreserved" or "general" category list. The Supreme Court upheld the appellant Airport Authority's recruitment process, ruling that reserved category candidates who secure appointment on their own merit, without availing any relaxation, must be counted against unreserved vacancies. This ensures that the most meritorious candidates are appointed, while the reserved quotas remain intact for other eligible candidates from those categories.
1. Basic Information of the Judgment
Coram: J.M. Sundresh, J. and Satish Chandra Sharma, J. (Division Bench)
Jurisdiction: Civil Appellate Jurisdiction.
Case No.: Civil Appeal arising from SLP (Civil) No. 10686 of 2020 and connected appeal.
Date of Judgment: January 16, 2026.
2. Legal Framework
The judgment interprets and applies the following constitutional principles, statutory rules, and administrative guidelines:
Constitutional Provisions:
Articles 14, 16, and 335: The foundational principles of equality, equality of opportunity in public employment, and the consideration of claims of SCs/STs.Key Administrative Instructions:
Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum dated 02.07.1997: Contains the model roster for implementing reservations.
DoPT Office Memorandum dated 23.01.2014: Provides the format for maintaining the reservation register.Landmark Precedents:
Indra Sawhney vs Union of India (1992): Established that reserved category candidates appointed on merit in the open/general category are not to be counted against the reserved quota.
R.K. Sabharwal vs State of Punjab (1995): Clarified that reservations are meant for posts, not vacancies.
Saurav Yadav vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2020): Elaborated on the concepts of vertical and horizontal reservations and the principle of "merit-induced shift."
Rajasthan High Court vs Rajat Yadav (2025): A recent and directly applicable precedent where the Supreme Court crystallized the law on migration of meritorious reserved category candidates to the general category.
3. Relevant Facts of the Case
The Recruitment: In 2013, the Airport Authority of India (AAI) advertised 245 posts for Junior Assistant (Fire Service), with a category-wise breakdown: 122 Unreserved (UR), 78 OBC, 22 SC, and 23 ST.
The Selection Process: After a written exam, physical tests, and an interview, a combined merit list of 185 qualified candidates was prepared. The AAI appointed 158 candidates. In preparing the select list, it first filled the 122 UR posts from the top 122 candidates in the combined merit list, irrespective of their caste category. This included several SC/ST/OBC candidates who had scored high marks. Only thereafter were separate lists drawn for the remaining OBC, SC, and ST vacancies from the pool of remaining eligible candidates from those categories.
The Result & Grievance: This process led to only 10 OBC and 4 ST appointments against their much higher advertised quotas. Sham Krishna B (Respondent No. 1), a general category candidate who ranked below the top 122, was not selected. He challenged the selection, arguing that by "migrating" reserved category candidates to the UR list, the AAI had effectively denied him a UR post and also failed to fill the reserved quotas.
High Court's Decision: The Kerala High Court allowed his petition, directing his appointment and ordering strict application of the roster as per the 1997 DoPT OM. The AAI appealed to the Supreme Court.
4. Issues Framed by the Court
The central issue before the Supreme Court was:
Whether the method adopted by the Airport Authority of India in preparing the select list—whereby meritorious reserved category candidates were adjusted against unreserved posts—was legally permissible and in consonance with the constitutional scheme of reservation?
5. Ratio Decidendi and Court's Analysis
The Supreme Court allowed the AAI's appeal and set aside the High Court's order, based on the following decisive reasoning:
Merit is Paramount for Unreserved Posts: The Court reaffirmed that posts advertised as "unreserved" or "open" are open to all candidates. The sole criterion for appointment to these posts is merit. If a candidate belonging to a reserved category secures a position in the merit list within the range of unreserved posts without availing any concession or relaxation (like lower qualifying marks or age relaxation), they must be appointed against an unreserved post.
No "Migration" but a "Merit-Induced Adjustment": The Court clarified that this is not a case of "migrating" a candidate from a reserved to an unreserved pool. Rather, from the very beginning of the merit-based evaluation, such a candidate competes and is treated as a general category candidate. Their caste status becomes irrelevant for filling the unreserved posts. The term "migration" is a misnomer; it is simply an adjustment based on merit.
Purpose of the Reservation Roster: The Court explained that the reservation roster (or register) is a post-facto administrative tool used to monitor the representation of various categories in a cadre over time. It is not a selection mechanism. Its primary purposes are: (i) to ensure the number of employees from a reserved category does not exceed the prescribed quota, and (ii) to identify the number of vacant posts in each category for future advertisements. It does not dictate that a reserved category candidate, who is meritorious enough for an unreserved post, must be pushed down to fill a reserved vacancy.
Reserved Quotas Remain Protected: The Court emphasized that this process does not eat into the reserved quotas. When a meritorious SC candidate is appointed against a UR post, that SC post remains available and must be filled by the next eligible SC candidate in the merit list. This was the principle laid down in Indra Sawhney and reinforced in Saurav Yadav.
Distinguishing Precedents: The Court distinguished cases like Chattar Singh where the rules explicitly stated that marks from a preliminary exam would not count for final merit. In the present case, all stages of the examination contributed to the final merit list, making merit the definitive criterion.
6. Legal Principles Clarified and Reaffirmed
This judgment consolidates and reinforces several key principles of reservation law:
The "Open Category" is Truly Open: The unreserved category is a merit-only zone. Caste, tribe, or class is immaterial for appointment to these posts.
Dual Benefit Prohibition is a Myth: A reserved category candidate does not get a "dual benefit" by being appointed on merit to an unreserved post. They get only one post, and their appointment on merit preserves a reserved vacancy for another candidate from their community.
Roster is for Monitoring, Not Selection: The reservation roster is a tool for ensuring long-term compositional compliance, not for determining the selection of individuals in a specific recruitment cycle.
Primacy of Merit in Unreserved Seats: The judgment strongly reinforces the constitutional balance between affirmative action (Articles 16(4), 335) and the fundamental principle of equality and merit (Articles 14, 16(1)).
7. Critical Analysis and Final Outcome
Critical Analysis:
The judgment is a significant step towards harmonizing the principles of merit and social justice. It correctly identifies and corrects a common misunderstanding in the implementation of reservation rosters. By prioritizing merit for unreserved posts, the Court upholds efficiency and competency in public services. Simultaneously, by safeguarding the reserved quotas, it ensures that the distributive goal of reservations is not undermined. The ruling provides much-needed clarity for recruiting authorities, preventing the unnecessary litigation that arises from incorrect roster application.
The Court's reasoning is doctrinally sound, building upon a consistent line of precedent. It also introduces a pragmatic note of caution, suggesting that if such an adjustment results in a meritorious reserved candidate losing a preferred service available in the reserved quota, mechanisms should exist to address this potential inequity.
Final Outcome:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Airport Authority of India (SLP(C) No. 10686 of 2020).
The impugned judgments of the Single Judge and Division Bench of the Kerala High Court were set aside.
The recruitment process conducted by the AAI was upheld as legal and valid.
The respondent, Sham Krishna B, was held not entitled to appointment as all 122 unreserved posts had been validly filled by more meritorious candidates (including those from reserved categories appointed on merit).
The connected appeal by an impleaded candidate (SLP(C) No. 12937 of 2021) was dismissed.
(MCQs)
1. According to the Supreme Court's ruling, a reserved category candidate (SC/ST/OBC) who secures a position within the unreserved category merit list without availing any concession should be?
a) Adjusted against a reserved vacancy to fill the quota first.
b) Treated as a general category candidate and appointed against an unreserved post.
c) Given the option to choose between a reserved or unreserved post.
d) Excluded from the unreserved list and placed only in the reserved category list.
2. What is the primary purpose of the reservation roster or register as explained by the Court?
a) To determine the individual selection of candidates during a recruitment drive.
b) To mandate that reserved category candidates can only be appointed against reserved posts.
c) To monitor the long-term representation of categories in a cadre and identify future vacancy composition.
d) To provide a parallel merit list for reserved category candidates.
3. Which constitutional principle is primarily reinforced by allowing meritorious reserved candidates to take unreserved posts?
a) The principle of protective discrimination under Article 15(4).
b) The principle of equality and merit under Articles 14 and 16(1).
c) The principle of federalism under Article 246.
d) The principle of judicial review under Article 32.
4. The Supreme Court held that the practice of adjusting meritorious reserved candidates to unreserved posts?
a) Deprives the reserved quotas and is unconstitutional.
b) Is correctly described as "migration" from one quota to another.
c) Does not consume the reserved quota, which remains available for the next eligible candidate from that category.
d) Is only permissible if no general category candidate is available.