Introduction:
In Airport Authority of India & Ors. v. Sham Krishna B & Ors., SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020, Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 63, the Supreme Court of India revisited and reaffirmed a well-settled principle of service jurisprudence: a reserved-category candidate who secures marks higher than the General Category cut-off must be treated as selected against an unreserved post, provided no relaxation or concession is availed. The case arose out of recruitment to the post of Junior Assistant (Fire Service) in the Airport Authority of India (AAI). A total of 245 posts were notified, of which 122 were unreserved, 78 for OBC, 22 for Scheduled Castes (SC), 23 for Scheduled Tribes (ST), and 1 carried forward vacancy. After completion of the selection process, 185 candidates qualified, out of whom 158 were initially selected and 27 were placed on a panel.
Respondent No. 1, belonging to the General Category, cleared all stages of the selection process but did not find his name in the final list of selected candidates. Upon seeking information, he learned that 122 candidates were selected under the unreserved category, 10 under OBC, 22 under SC, and 4 under ST. His overall merit position was 132, and he stood 10th among the unselected candidates in the unreserved category. He challenged the selection primarily on the ground that reserved-category candidates had been adjusted against unreserved posts, thereby allegedly depriving General Category candidates of their rightful share, and that only 158 appointments were made against 245 notified vacancies, suggesting faulty application of the reservation roster. The Single Judge of the High Court ruled in his favour, directing rearrangement of candidates as per the 1997 DoPT Office Memorandum (OM) and filling up of remaining posts. The Division Bench, while upholding the findings, limited the relief and directed appointment of Respondent No. 1 against a vacancy kept open by the Single Judge, while also directing future compliance with the roster. Aggrieved, AAI approached the Supreme Court, leading to the present judgment.
Arguments of the Parties:
The AAI contended that the selection process was conducted strictly on merit, without extending any relaxation or concession to reserved-category candidates in terms of qualifying marks, age, or standards. It was argued that several candidates belonging to reserved categories scored higher than the cut-off prescribed for General Category candidates and, therefore, were rightly adjusted against unreserved vacancies in accordance with settled law. The appellants emphasized that migration of reserved-category candidates to unreserved posts on merit is not only permissible but mandatory, so as to prevent distortion of both merit and reservation quotas.
AAI further argued that the High Court misunderstood the role of the reservation roster, treating it as a tool for selection rather than as a post-selection administrative mechanism to maintain representation in the cadre. According to the appellants, the roster is used at the stage of identifying vacancies for advertisement, and not at the stage of drawing the merit list. Once candidates are selected purely on merit, the roster merely helps in categorizing appointments, but it cannot be applied in a manner that forces meritorious reserved-category candidates into reserved slots when they qualify for unreserved posts on their own merit.
The appellants also relied upon binding precedents, particularly Rajasthan High Court v. Rajat Yadav, wherein the Supreme Court held that reserved-category candidates who score above the General Category cut-off must be treated as unreserved candidates, and their selection should not be counted against the reserved quota. Any contrary approach, AAI argued, would inflate reservation beyond constitutional limits and violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution by penalizing merit.
On the issue of unfilled vacancies, AAI submitted that the number of appointments depended on the number of candidates who qualified as per prescribed standards, and there was no absolute obligation to fill all notified posts if suitable candidates were not available or if the recruitment process yielded fewer qualifying candidates. Therefore, the High Court’s assumption that non-filling of all 245 posts ipso facto vitiated the process was legally flawed.
Respondent No. 1 argued that the reservation policy had been improperly applied, resulting in loss of opportunity to General Category candidates. It was contended that when reserved-category candidates are adjusted against unreserved posts, the corresponding reserved posts should still be filled by eligible candidates of those reserved categories, so that both unreserved and reserved vacancies are fully utilized. The failure to appoint candidates against all notified posts was portrayed as evidence of administrative arbitrariness and incorrect roster implementation.
The respondents relied heavily on the 1997 DoPT Office Memorandum, asserting that the model roster must be followed strictly, and that deviation from it would lead to skewed representation and unfair outcomes. They supported the High Court’s view that the entire selection process stood vitiated, or at least required rearrangement, because the roster was not properly implemented while finalizing appointments.
It was also argued that since Respondent No. 1 was within the zone of consideration and had cleared all stages of the examination, denial of appointment while leaving posts unfilled was unjust, arbitrary, and violative of equality principles. The respondents defended the High Court’s limited relief of directing appointment of Respondent No. 1 against the vacancy kept open, asserting that this approach balanced individual justice with administrative stability.
Court’s Judgment and Legal Reasoning:
A Bench comprising Justices M.M. Sundresh and S.C. Sharma set aside the judgments of both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court, holding that the High Court had misapplied the law relating to reservation, merit, and roster operation. The Supreme Court began by reiterating a settled proposition of law: a reserved-category candidate who secures marks higher than the General Category cut-off must be treated as selected against an unreserved post, provided the candidate has not availed any relaxation or concession. This principle, the Court observed, flows directly from constitutional equality and has been consistently upheld in earlier decisions, including Rajasthan High Court v. Rajat Yadav.
The Court examined the factual matrix and found that no relaxation was granted to reserved-category candidates at any stage of the recruitment process. Their migration to the unreserved list occurred solely on the basis of merit, because they had outscored General Category candidates. Therefore, their placement against unreserved vacancies was not only lawful but constitutionally mandated. Any attempt to push such candidates back into reserved slots would result in double benefit to the reserved categories and unfair deprivation to more meritorious candidates.
A significant part of the judgment addressed the concept and function of the reservation roster. The Court clarified that the roster does not operate at the stage of selection, but at the stage of post-identification and cadre management. The roster helps determine how many posts are to be reserved and in which category, at the time of advertisement. However, once the recruitment process is completed and a merit list is prepared, the roster cannot be used to alter the order of merit or force category-wise compartmentalization of candidates who have already qualified on general standards.
The Court explained that a reservation register or roster is essentially a record of appointments in a cadre, maintained after candidates join service, to ensure that over time the constitutional reservation percentages are met. It is not a tool to be applied mechanically during selection so as to override merit. While the roster can be referred to in deciding whether a category quota has been filled, it cannot be used to deny selection to a candidate who is otherwise entitled on merit to an unreserved post.
On the issue of non-filling of all notified vacancies, the Court rejected the High Court’s assumption that this automatically rendered the selection process illegal. The Supreme Court noted that not all recruitment processes result in filling of all posts, particularly where candidates do not meet qualifying standards or where the employer chooses to fill fewer posts based on administrative considerations. The mere fact that only 158 appointments were made out of 245 notified posts did not, by itself, establish illegality or arbitrariness, especially when 185 candidates had qualified and selections were made strictly on merit.
Importantly, the Court disapproved of the High Court’s direction to rearrange candidates as per the roster after the selection process. Such a direction, the Supreme Court held, would disturb settled principles of merit-based selection and could lead to retrospective manipulation of results, which is impermissible in service law. The Supreme Court emphasized that judicial interference in recruitment must be minimal and principled, especially when the selection process is otherwise fair, transparent, and merit-driven.
With respect to the relief granted to Respondent No. 1 by the Division Bench, the Supreme Court held that no direction for appointment could be sustained, because his non-selection was not the result of illegality, but rather a consequence of his merit position falling below the cut-off after rightful migration of meritorious reserved-category candidates to unreserved posts. The Court clarified that sympathetic considerations cannot override constitutional and statutory principles governing recruitment.
Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court, upheld the selection process conducted by AAI, and declined to issue any direction for appointment of Respondent No. 1 or any other candidate from the unreserved category. The Court reaffirmed that merit-based migration of reserved-category candidates to unreserved posts preserves both equality and the integrity of reservation policy, and any contrary approach would distort constitutional objectives.