⚖️ Supreme Court Judgment – Railway Protection Force v. Prem Chand Kumar (2025)

Delhi Law Academy Jaipur presents below for aspirants of RJS, DJS, PCS(J) and other Judicial Services throughout India a summarized version of the most recent judgment of the Supreme Court delivered on September 9, 2025 in the case of Railway Protection Force v. Prem Chand Kumar deciding whether a reserved candidate who has scored higher than the last selected unreserved candidate but has availed relaxation in fees/upper age limit may be recruited against unreserved seats.

📝 Issue

Whether a reserved candidate who has scored higher than the last selected unreserved candidate but has availed relaxation in fees/upper age limit may be recruited against unreserved seats?

✅ Decision

If 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.

If an embargo is imposed under relevant recruitment rules, such reserved candidates shall not be permitted to migrate to general category seats.

📖 Relevant extracts from the judgment

Appellants have assailed judgement and order dated 29.03.2019 whereby the High Court directed the respondents writ petitioners, who had applied in reserved category and availed relaxation in age and/or physical measurements to participate in the recruitment process and had obtained marks higher than the last selected candidate in the unreserved category, to be appointed in the unreserved category.

On 06.12.2013, Employment Notice No. 1/2013 was issued by 2nd Appellant-Railway Board inviting applications for filling up 659 posts in seven different categories ……..

Clause 4(d)(v): “No age relaxation is allowed to SC/ST/OBC candidates applying against unreserved vacancies.”

High Court framed the issue:
“The issue that arises is whether the Petitioners who secured more than the UR candidates in the written test and trade test can be considered against the UR vacancies?”

Stance of the Appellants: though some SC/ST candidates had secured higher marks than the unreserved cut-off, they could not be treated in unreserved category as they had availed relaxations.

Standing Order No.85 (05.03.2009) – Para 14(f):
“Candidates from SC, ST and OBC categories selected purely on merit without availing any relaxation in age, physical measurements and Qualifying Marks in written test shall not be counted against vacancies reserved for such categories.”

Respondents’ stance: recruitment governed by Standing Order No.78 (21.02.2008), which permitted migration of reserved candidates to UR category if they scored higher in merit.

Standing Order No.78 – Para 14(b):
“Candidates from SC, ST and OBC categories who come into the general merit list by securing higher marks shall be selected against unreserved vacancies.”

High Court applied Standing Order No.78 and directed appointment of respondents. But Standing Order No.85 (later and overriding) imposed a bar, upheld by Supreme Court.

⚖️ Supreme Court’s Observation

The Court clarified that the applicability depends on recruitment rules:

• ✔️ If no embargo → Reserved candidates with higher marks can migrate to UR seats.
• ❌ If embargo exists → Reserved candidates availing relaxation cannot migrate to UR seats.

“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…”

📌 Final Decision

In light of Standing Order No. 85 read with Revised Directive No. 29, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and allowed the appeal.

🔎 This blog is a summarized note for judicial service aspirants prepared by Delhi Law Academy Jaipur.

📍 Delhi Law Academy – Jaipur Branch
6C, Tower 2, Coaching Hub, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur – 302033

📞 Phone:
+91 9911916552
+91 8447285606

✉️ Email:
contactus@delhilawacademy.com