Relaxed Prelims Candidate Not Eligible for Unreserved Insider Cadre | SC

Caae Details: Union of India vs. G. Kiran – [2026] 182 taxmann.com 157 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• J.K. Maheshwari & Vijay Bishnoi, JJ.
• Nikhil Goel, Sr. Adv., Amit Pai, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Aors, Aditya Bhat, Ms Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Ms Merin Francis, Advs. Jayanth Muth Raj, Sr. Adv., Vinodh Kanna B, Abhilash M R, Ms Thilagavathi P, Dhruv Joshi, Ms Shikha John, Mrs P S Vijayadharni, Mayank Sharma, Arindam Sarin, Tathagata Dutta, Abhiyudaya Vats, Advs. & Vardhman Kaushik, Aor for the Appearing Parties.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, Respondent No. 1, a reserved category candidate, had availed relaxation in the Preliminary Examination but was placed higher in merit than the unreserved candidate, i.e., Respondent No. 3, in the final merit list based on the total marks obtained in the Main Examination (Written) and Personality Test.

However, Respondent No. 1 was allocated the Tamil Nadu cadre, whereas Respondent No. 3 was allocated a General Insider vacancy for the State of Karnataka. Respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition claiming that he ought to be treated as a general merit candidate for the purpose of cadre allocation and be allotted the General Insider vacancy for the State of Karnataka.

High Court Held

The High Court, by the impugned order, held that Respondent No. 1 should be treated as a general category candidate and would be entitled to allocation of the Karnataka cadre against a General Insider vacancy. It was observed that since Respondent No. 1 had qualified the Preliminary Examination by availing a ‘relaxed standard’, he ought to be considered only against reserved vacancies and could not be considered against general or unreserved vacancies for the purpose of cadre allocation.

The Supreme Court observed that allocation against an unreserved vacancy to a candidate belonging to a reserved category is permissible only where the candidate is selected on ‘general standards’ without availing any ‘relaxed standard’ at any stage of eligibility or selection. Where a candidate has availed any relaxed standard, the allocation of cadre must be against the vacancy of the respective reserved category.

Accordingly, the Court held that a candidate who has availed relaxation at any stage of the examination cannot claim a ‘General Insider’ vacancy of the home State cadre as an insider candidate. Therefore, Respondent No. 1, having availed the benefit of a relaxed standard in the Preliminary Examination, could not be treated as a candidate selected on general standards and was consequently not entitled to allocation against the General Insider vacancy in the Karnataka cadre in place of Respondent No. 3.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Anthony S Mariyappa v. Union of India in Writ Petition No. 18947 of 2016 (S-CAT) and Writ Petition No. 54254 of 2016 (S-CAT), Dated 06-08-2019 (para 40) set aside
• Deepa E.V. v. Union of India (2017) 12 SCC 680 (para 30)
• Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan (2018) 11 SCC 352 (para 31)
• Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujarat Public Service Commission (2019) 7 SCC 383 (para 32)
• Union of India v. Sajib Roy [2025] 178 taxmann.com 275 (SC) (para 33) followed
• Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC 119 (para 34)
• Ajithkumar P. v. Remin K.R. [2015] 10 taxmann.com 1367 (SC)
• Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal (2017) 1 SCC 350 (para 35) distinguished

List of Cases Referred to

• Deepa E.V. v. Union of India (2017) 12 SCC 680 (para 12)
• Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan (2018) 11 SCC 352 (para 12)
• Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujarat Public Service Commission (2019) 7 SCC 383 (para 12)
• Union of India v. Sajib Roy [2025] 178 taxmann.com 275 (SC) (para 12)
• Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC 119 (para 16)
• Ajithkumar P. v. Remin K.R. [2015] 10 taxmann.com 1367 (SC) (para 16)
• Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal (2017) 1 SCC 350 (para 16).