Reserved Category Candidates Selected Without Concessions Can Fill Unreserved Posts: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has held that reserved category candidates who secure selection on their own merit, without availing any concession or relaxation, are entitled to be adjusted against unreserved posts, and such appointments do not violate reservation norms. The bench of Justice M. M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma has set aside the Kerala High Court’s directions that had ordered the appointment of a candidate to the post of Junior Assistant (Fire Service) in the Airport Authority of India (AAI) on the ground of improper application of the reservation roster. The controversy arose out of AAI’s recruitment process initiated in 2013 for 245 posts of Junior Assistant (Fire Service). Of these, 122 posts were earmarked as unreserved, while the remaining were reserved for OBC, SC and ST categories. Following a multi-stage selection process involving a written examination, physical tests and interviews, only 158 candidates were finally appointed. Sham Krishna B, an unreserved category candidate who had qualified all stages of the selection but was not appointed, sought information under the Right to Information Act. The information revealed that several reserved category candidates had been included in the unreserved list based on higher merit, while a large number of reserved vacancies remained unfilled. Aggrieved, he approached the Kerala High Court challenging the selection process. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, holding that the reservation roster had not been correctly applied and directed preparation of a fresh rank list. The Division Bench largely upheld this view and ordered the appointment of the writ petitioner to a vacancy kept open, while also directing AAI to strictly follow the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) roster guidelines. The core legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether candidates belonging to reserved categories, who secure higher marks without availing reservation benefits, can be adjusted against unreserved posts, and whether such adjustment amounts to a violation of the reservation roster or denial of opportunities to unreserved candidates. AAI contended that the High Court had misconstrued settled law and ignored the principle that merit-based selection into unreserved posts is open to all candidates, irrespective of category. It was also argued that the reservation roster is a post-based administrative tool meant to reflect cadre strength and future vacancies, and not a mechanism to interfere with the merit list during selection. Allowing AAI’s appeal, the Supreme Court undertook an extensive review of constitutional principles and prior precedents on reservation. The Court reiterated that “unreserved” or “open” posts are not a separate quota, but are available to all candidates purely on merit. The Bench emphasised that the reservation roster comes into operation after the selection process, primarily to monitor representation and identify future vacancies. It cannot be used to displace meritorious candidates who secure selection to open posts without claiming any reservation benefit. Relying on earlier landmark judgments, including Indra Sawhney, Saurav Yadav and its recent decision in Rajasthan High Court v. Rajat Yadav, the Court reaffirmed that merit-based inclusion of reserved category candidates in the unreserved list is constitutionally mandated and does not amount to “migration” or misuse of reservation. The Supreme Court held that all 122 unreserved posts in the AAI recruitment had been filled strictly on the basis of merit, and the reserved category candidates included in that list had not availed any relaxation or concession. Consequently, there was no illegality in their appointment against unreserved posts. The Court concluded that the Kerala High Court erred in directing the appointment of the writ petitioner and in holding that the roster had been misapplied. Accordingly, it set aside the judgments of both the Single Judge and the Division Bench, allowed AAI’s appeal, and dismissed the connected appeal filed by an impleaded candidate. Case Details Case Title: AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ORS. Versus SHAM KRISHNA B & ORS. Case No.: SLP (Civil) No. 10686 of 2020 Date: January 16, 2026 Click Here To Read Order Read More: CBIC Extends Export Incentives to Postal Shipments from January 15, 2026

Reserved Category Candidates Selected Without Concessions Can Fill Unreserved Posts: Supreme Court

Membership Required

Latest articles

Allahabad High Court Denies Bail in Alleged GST Fraud Case, Cites Prima Facie Evidence of Involvement

Appeals Before GSTAT Can Be Filled Till June 30, 2026: Allahabad HC

Delay of 1394 Days in Filing Appeal Condoned by MVAT Tribunal on the Plea that Assessee’s CA Had Taken Diksha; Rs. 60K Cost Imposed

JURISHOUR | TAX LAW DAILY BULLETIN : APRIL 11, 2026

More like this

Allahabad High Court Denies Bail in Alleged GST Fraud Case, Cites Prima Facie Evidence of Involvement

Appeals Before GSTAT Can Be Filled Till June 30, 2026: Allahabad HC

Delay of 1394 Days in Filing Appeal Condoned by MVAT Tribunal on the Plea that Assessee’s CA Had Taken Diksha; Rs. 60K Cost Imposed

About us

Company

Categories