In a pivotal judgment with far-reaching implications for reservation policies in competitive examinations, the Supreme Court has ruled that reserved category candidates who avail relaxation in qualifying standards at the preliminary stage cannot migrate to unreserved vacancies for cadre allocation, even if they outperform general category candidates in subsequent stages.
The case stemmed from the 2013 Indian Forest Service (IFS) examination, where Respondent No. 1, G. Kiran (SC category), qualified the Preliminary Examination by availing the relaxed cut-off of 233 marks, securing 247.18 marks. In contrast, Respondent No. 3, Antony S. Mariyappa (General category), qualified under the general cut-off of 267 marks with 270.68 marks. Although Kiran achieved a higher final merit rank of 19 compared to Mariyappa’s 37 (based on Main Examination and Interview scores), the Union of India allocated the sole “General Insider” vacancy in Karnataka to Mariyappa, assigning Kiran to Tamil Nadu due to the absence of an SC Insider vacancy.
Kiran challenged this allocation before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Bangalore Bench, which allowed his Original Application on March 15, 2016, directing allocation of the Karnataka General Insider vacancy to him. The Karnataka High Court affirmed this on August 6, 2019, in Writ Petitions Nos. 18947/2016 and 54254/2016, holding that the Preliminary Examination was merely a screening test and its marks did not count towards final merit.
Allowing the appeals filed by the Union of India and Mariyappa, a Bench comprising Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi set aside the impugned orders. The judgment, authored by Justice Maheshwari, underscored the integrated nature of the IFS selection process under the Exam Rules, 2013.
Interpreting Rule 14(ii) of the IFS Examination Rules, 2013, the Court highlighted the proviso: “Provided that the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes who have been recommended by the Commission without resorting to any relaxations/concessions in the eligibility or selection criteria, at any stage of the examination, shall not be adjusted against the vacancies reserved for the Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes.”
The Court observed that qualifying the Preliminary Examination is a prerequisite, and any relaxation availed therein precludes treatment as a “General Standard” candidate for cadre allocation under Paragraph 9 of the Cadre Allocation Policy, 2008 (as amended in 2011).
The Bench framed the central question: Whether a reserved category candidate availing relaxation in the Preliminary Examination can be considered an “Insider General” for allocation against an unreserved vacancy, despite securing higher final merit?
Rejecting the High Court’s view, the Court held: “After availing the benefit of this relaxation for admission to the Main Examination, Respondent No. 1 cannot subsequently claim to have been selected on ‘General Standard’ merely due to his performance in the subsequent stages surpassed the general standard. Therefore, if a candidate who has resorted a relaxation at any stage of examination, would not fall within the purview of the proviso to Rule 14(ii) of the Exam Rules, 2013 and in that situation, for the purpose of the applicable Policy for cadre allocation, he would not fall within the list of candidates selected on ‘General Standard’ claiming General Insider vacancy of home state cadre as insider candidate.”
The Court distinguished precedents relied upon by Respondent No. 1, such as Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of UP (2010) 3 SCC 119, Ajithkumar P. v. Remin K.R. (2015) 16 SCC 778, and Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal (2017) 1 SCC 350, noting they involved cases where no relaxation was availed at any stage.
Instead, it relied on Deepa E.V. v. Union of India (2017) 12 SCC 680, Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan (2018) 11 SCC 352, Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujarat Public Service Commission (2019) 7 SCC 383, and the recent Union of India v. Sajib Roy (2025) SCC OnLine SC 1943, affirming that concessions in cut-off, age, or attempts bar migration unless expressly permitted.
Cause Title: Union of India v. G. Kiran & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. _ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4743 of 2020)] with connected matter Antony S. Mariyappa v. G. Kiran & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. _ of 2026 (arising out of SLP (C) No. 4067 of 2022)]
Click HERE for full judgment.
Lawcutor 