Summary and Analysis of Railway Protection Force & Ors vs Prem Chand Kumar & Ors 2025 INSC 1083
1. Heading of the Judgment
Railway Protection Force & Ors. vs. Prem Chand Kumar & Ors. with Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 28469/2019
Citation: 2025 INSC 1083
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Surya Kant and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Joymalya Bagchi
Date of Judgment: September 09, 2025
2. Related Laws, Rules, and Office Memoranda
The judgment interprets and applies several administrative instruments governing recruitment in Central Government services:
For the RPF Case (Prem Chand Kumar):
Employment Notice No. 1/2013: The original recruitment advertisement for RPF Constable (Ancillary) posts.
Standing Order No. 78 of 2008: Governed recruitment for ancillary staff. Its Paragraph 14(b) allowed reserved category candidates who secured higher marks to be selected against unreserved vacancies, even if they availed relaxations.
Standing Order No. 85 of 2009: Governed recruitment for Constables. Its Paragraph 14(f) stated that only reserved category candidates selected without availing any relaxation in age, physical measurements, or qualifying marks could be appointed against unreserved vacancies.
Revised Directive No. 29 (06.12.2013: This directive partially modified Standing Order No. 78 and made the procedure in Standing Order No. 85 applicable to the recruitment of ancillary staff.For the CISF Case (SLP 28469/2019):
Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated 01.07.1998: Clarified that SC/ST/OBC candidates selected on the same standard as general candidates are not adjusted against reserved vacancies. However, if a relaxed standard is applied (e.g., in age limit, experience, qualification, number of chances, extended zone of consideration), the candidate must be counted against a reserved vacancy.
Office Memorandum (O.M.) dated 04.04.2018: Reiterated the principles laid down in the 1998 O.M.
3. Basic Judgment Details
This was a combined judgment dealing with two separate Special Leave Petitions (SLPs) that raised a common legal question: Can a candidate from a reserved category (SC/ST/OBC), who avails concessions or relaxations meant for their category, later be selected against an unreserved (general) vacancy if their score is higher than the last selected general category candidate?
SLP (C) No. 20866/2019 (RPF vs. Prem Chand Kumar): Related to the recruitment of Constables in the Railway Protection Force's ancillary services. Reserved category candidates availed relaxations in age and physical measurements but scored higher than the general category cut-off. They were denied migration to unreserved vacancies based on Standing Order No. 85.
SLP (C) No. 28469/2019: Related to the recruitment of Assistant Commandants in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). A Scheduled Tribe (ST) candidate, who availed a concession in the minimum height requirement, scored higher than the last selected general category candidate and was appointed against a general vacancy. A general category candidate challenged this.
4. Explanation of the Judgments
A. Judgment in RPF vs. Prem Chand Kumar (SLP 20866/2019)
Issue: The core issue was whether the recruitment for ancillary posts was governed by Standing Order No. 78 (which allowed migration) or Standing Order No. 85 (which barred migration if relaxations were availed).
Arguments:
The Railways (Appellants) argued that Revised Directive No. 29 made Standing Order No. 85 applicable. Since Para 14(f) of this Order explicitly barred candidates who availed relaxations from being considered for unreserved seats, the respondents were ineligible.
The Candidates (Respondents) argued that Revised Directive No. 29 only partially modified Standing Order No. 78, and therefore, its beneficial Paragraph 14(b), allowing migration, should still apply.
Supreme Court's Analysis and Decision:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Railways. The Court held that the High Court erred in its interpretation.
The phrase "partial modification" in Revised Directive No. 29 meant that the procedure from Standing Order No. 85 was to be applied to the ancillary recruitment process.
This created a direct conflict between Paragraph 14(b) of Standing Order No. 78 (allow migration) and Paragraph 14(f) of Standing Order No. 85 (disallow migration if relaxations are taken).
The Court ruled that the specific and later directive (Revised Directive No. 29 applying S.O. 85) would have an overriding effect over the general earlier rule (S.O. 78). Consequently, Paragraph 14(f) of S.O. 85 prevailed.
The Court relied on its earlier precedent in Union of India vs. Sajib Roy, which held that migration is only permitted if the recruitment rules do not impose an embargo. Since an embargo was clearly imposed by S.O. 85, the respondents could not be appointed to unreserved vacancies.
Final Direction: The impugned judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the appeal of the Railways was allowed.
B. Judgment in the CISF Case (SLP 28469/2019)
Issue: The issue was whether the concession in physical standards (like height) given to a reserved category candidate disqualifies them from being considered for an unreserved vacancy, even if they score higher marks without any other relaxation.
Arguments:
The Appellant (General Candidate) argued that the O.M. dated 01.07.1998 includes "etc." after listing relaxations (age, experience, etc.), which should encompass physical standards. Therefore, the ST candidate, having availed a height concession, should be counted only against a reserved vacancy.
The Union of India & UPSC (Respondents) argued that physical standards are "enlistment standards" that vary naturally based on gender, ethnic origin, and geographical factors. They are fundamentally different from relaxations in age or educational qualifications. The O.M. was not intended to cover these inherent variations.
Supreme Court's Analysis and Decision:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and agreed with the High Court and the respondents' interpretation.
The Court applied the principle of ejusdem generis, meaning the word "etc." in the O.M. must be interpreted in the context of the specific words that precede it (age limit, experience, qualification, number of chances). These are all relaxations of eligibility criteria, not inherent physical attributes.
Physical standards like height are prescribed differently for men, women, and different ethnicities based on physiological realities. A lower height requirement for ST candidates or women is not a "relaxation" in the same sense as lowering the age limit for everyone; it is the definition of the standard itself for that group.
The Court distinguished this case from the RPF case, noting that the O.M. did not expressly mention physical standards, whereas Standing Order No. 85 in the RPF case specifically did.
The Court also distinguished precedents like Deepa E.V. vs. Union of India where migration was barred due to an express embargo on age relaxation, which was directly covered by the O.M.
Final Direction: The Supreme Court found no error in the High Court's judgment and upheld the appointment of the ST candidate against the unreserved vacancy. The appeal was dismissed.
In-Depth Analysis and Core Principle
The twin judgments establish a clear and nuanced legal principle:
The permissibility of a reserved category candidate migrating to an unreserved vacancy depends entirely on the specific language of the governing recruitment rules/notifications.
If the Rules Impose an Embargo: If the applicable rules (like RPF's S.O. 85) explicitly state that availing any form of concession (age, physical standard, fee, etc.) bars migration, then it is strictly prohibited. The Court will enforce this embargo.
If the Rules are Silent or Ambiguous: In the absence of a clear embargo, the general principle of merit prevails. A reserved candidate scoring above the general cut-off can be appointed against an unreserved seat.
Distinction Between Types of Concessions: The Court created a vital distinction between:
Relaxations of Eligibility Criteria: Concessions in age, number of attempts, or qualifying marks. These are typically covered by office memoranda like the one dated 01.07.1998 and will usually bar migration if availed.
Differing Physical Standards: Variations in height, chest measurements, etc., prescribed for different categories (gender, ethnicity) based on natural physical differences. These are not considered "relaxations" in the same legal sense and, unless expressly barred, do not prevent a candidate from competing for and securing an unreserved seat on pure merit.
This judgment provides crucial clarity for recruiting authorities and candidates, emphasizing that the specific text of the recruitment advertisement and its governing rules are paramount in resolving such disputes.