Summary and Analysis of Union of India & Ors vs Sajib Roy 2025 INSC 1084
1. Heading of the Judgment
Union of India & Ors. vs. Sajib Roy
Citation: 2025 INSC 1084
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 primarily interprets and applies the following administrative instrument:
Office Memorandum (O.M.) No. 36011/1/98-Estt. (Res) dated 01.07.1998: Issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), this is the central document in the case. It clarifies that:
SC/ST/OBC candidates selected on the same standard as general candidates are not to be adjusted against reserved vacancies.
However, if a relaxed standard is applied in selecting them (e.g., in age limit, experience, qualification, permitted number of chances in written examination, extended zone of consideration), such candidates must be counted against reserved vacancies.
Crucially, it states: "Such candidates would be deemed as unavailable for consideration against unreserved vacancies."
3. Basic Judgment Details
This case was an appeal by the Union of India against a common High Court judgment that had directed the appointment of OBC candidates to unreserved vacancies.
Parties:
Appellants: Union of India & Others (the recruiting authorities).
Respondents: Sajib Roy and other writ petitioners (OBC candidates).Core Dispute: The respondents, who belonged to the OBC category, had availed a 3-year relaxation in the upper age limit to participate in a recruitment process for Constables (GD). They scored marks higher than the last selected candidate in the unreserved category but lower than the last selected candidate in the OBC category. They argued they should be appointed to the unreserved vacancies based on their merit.
High Court's Decision: The High Court, relying on the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh vs. State of UP, allowed the petitions and directed the authorities to consider these OBC candidates for appointment under the unreserved category.
Issue before Supreme Court: Did the High Court err in applying the principle from Jitendra Kumar Singh despite the clear embargo (ban) on such migration present in the DoPT O.M. dated 01.07.1998?
4. Explanation of the Judgment
Supreme Court's Analysis and Reasoning
The Supreme Court allowed the Union of India's appeal and set aside the High Court's order. The Court's reasoning was structured as follows:
1. Distinguishing the Precedent (Jitendra Kumar Singh Case):
The respondents heavily relied on Jitendra Kumar Singh, where the Supreme Court had allowed migration, stating that relaxations in age and fee were merely an "aid to reservation" to bring candidates into the zone of consideration and did not affect the "level-playing field" in the merit-based written examination.
The Supreme Court in this case clarified that the decision in Jitendra Kumar Singh was not based on a general principle of law but was specifically tied to the interpretation of the Uttar Pradesh Public Services Act, 1994, and a state government order that expressly permitted such migration. The observations on "level-playing field" were made in that specific context where the rules allowed it.
2. The Primacy of the Governing Rules (The DoPT O.M.):
The Court emphasized that the recruitment process in the present case was governed by the central DoPT O.M. dated 01.07.1998. This O.M. contained an express and unambiguous bar: reserved category candidates who avail relaxations (like age) are to be deemed "unavailable for consideration against unreserved vacancies."
The Court held that the High Court committed a legal error by "mechanically applying" the ratio of Jitendra Kumar Singh without appreciating that the factual and legal context was completely different. Here, there was a clear central government rule prohibiting what the petitioners sought.
3. Review of Other Precedents:
The Court reviewed several other judgments cited by the respondents (like Vikas Sankhala, Saurav Yadav, Sadhana Singh Dangi). It found that each of those cases was distinguishable:
* In Vikas Sankhala, the concession (relaxation in TET qualifying marks) did not give any advantage in the final merit calculation.
* In Saurav Yadav and Sadhana Singh Dangi, the cases dealt with horizontal (women) reservation within vertical (OBC/SC/ST) reservation, and crucially, there was no rule barring migration.
The Court noted that in cases where a similar embargo existed (like in Deepa E.V. vs. Union of India and Government (NCT of Delhi) vs. Pradeep Kumar), it had consistently held that migration is not permitted.
The Supreme Court's Final Direction and Core Principle
The Court summarized the overarching legal principle that emerges from this and other cases:
"Whether a reserved candidate who has availed relaxation in fees/upper age limit to participate in open competition with general candidates may be recruited against unreserved seats would depend on the facts of each case. That is to say, in the event there is no embargo in the recruitment rules/employment notification, such reserved candidates who have scored higher than the last selected unreserved candidate shall be entitled to migrate and be recruited against unreserved seats. However, if an embargo is imposed under relevant recruitment rules, such reserved candidates shall not be permitted to migrate to general category seats."
Final Order: Since the respondents had availed the age relaxation and a clear embargo existed under the applicable O.M. dated 01.07.1998, the Supreme Court held they were not entitled to migration. The appeals filed by the Union of India were allowed, and the High Court's direction to appoint them was set aside.
In-Depth Analysis
This judgment reinforces a fundamental rule of administrative law: recruitment must be strictly governed by the rules advertised and in force at the time of the process.
No Absolute Right to Migration: The Court decisively rejected the argument that meritorious performance alone creates an absolute right for a reserved candidate to claim an unreserved seat. The right is conditional and subject to the specific governing rules.
Context is Key: The judgment is a masterclass in precedent analysis. It teaches that judicial observations cannot be lifted out of their factual context and applied universally. A case is only an authority for what it actually decides based on the rules it interpreted.
Clarity for Recruiting Authorities: The ruling provides much-needed clarity and certainty for government departments. It mandates that the language of recruitment notifications and governing office memoranda is paramount. If an authority intends to bar migration, it must explicitly state so in the rules, as was done in the DoPT O.M.
Balance of Policies: The decision acknowledges the tension between the principle of merit and the policy of reservation. It resolves this tension by deferring to the expressed will of the executive as codified in the recruitment rules, rather than imposing a one-size-fits-all judicial solution.