Holding

Standing Order No.85, as modified by Revised Directive No.29, imposes an embargo on migration of reserved candidates who have availed relaxation in age or physical measurements, so they cannot be appointed against unreserved vacancies even if they score higher.

Summary

The Railway Board issued an employment notice for 659 (later 763) constable ancillary posts in the Railway Protection Force, reserving seats for SC/ST/OBC candidates with age and physical‑measurement relaxations. Several SC/ST candidates who availed these relaxations scored higher than the cut‑off for the unreserved category, and they sought appointment against the unfilled unreserved vacancies. The Delhi High Court held that, under Standing Order No.78, such candidates could migrate to the general merit list and directed their appointment. The Supreme Court examined the interplay of Standing Order No.78, Standing Order No.85 and Revised Directive No.29 and held that Paragraph 14(f) of Standing Order No.85 imposes an embargo on migration of reserved candidates who have taken any relaxation in age or physical standards, even if they score higher than the unreserved cut‑off. Consequently, the High Court’s order was set aside and the appeal (Civil Appeal No. 11716) was allowed, while the parallel appeal (Civil Appeal No. 11717) was dismissed. The Court affirmed that the recruitment rules, not the office memorandum, govern the eligibility for migration.

Issues considered

Whether reserved category candidates who have availed relaxation in age and/or physical measurements and have scored higher than the cut‑off for unreserved category can be considered for unreserved vacancies.
Whether Standing Order No.85, read with Revised Directive No.29, overrides Standing Order No.78 regarding migration of reserved candidates.
Whether the Office Memorandum dated 01.07.1998 bars migration of reserved candidates availing relaxation in physical standards.

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Issue arose whether the respondents having applied in reserved category, and availed relaxation in age and/or physical measurements to participate in the recruitment process and secured more than the unreserved candidates in the written test and trade test can be vacancies. Headnotes† Service law – Recruitment – Migration of reserved candidates scoring higher in the merit test to unreserved category – Permissibility – Recruitment in ancillary posts in the Railway Protection Special Force – Respondents, applied

Subjects

Reserved categoryRelaxation in age and/or physical measurementsRecruitment processUnreserved candidatesWritten test and trade testMigration of reserved candidatesRecruitment in ancillary postsRailway Protection Special ForceLast selected candidateAppointmentVacant postsStanding Order No.85Revised Directive No.29Direct recruitmentSC/ST/OBC candidates selected on their own meritConcessions or relaxationsGeneral categoryPosts of Assistant CommandantCentral Industrial Security Forces (CISF)Minimum cut-off marksRelaxed physical standards

Judgment

[2025] 9 S.C.R. 558 : 2025 INSC 1083

Railway Protection Force & Ors.
v.
Prem Chand Kumar & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 11716 of 2025)
09 September 2025
[Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Issue arose whether the respondents having applied in reserved
category, and availed relaxation in age and/or physical measurements
to participate in the recruitment process and secured more than
the unreserved candidates in the written test and trade test can
be considered against the unreserved vacancies.

Headnotes†
Service law – Recruitment – Migration of reserved candidates
scoring higher in the merit test to unreserved category –
Permissibility – Recruitment in ancillary posts in the
Railway Protection Special Force – Respondents, applied in
reserved category, availed relaxation in age and/or physical
measurements to participate in the recruitment process and
obtained marks higher than the last selected candidate in the
unreserved category – Respondents sought appointment to
the vacant posts in the unreserved category – High Court
allowed the writ petition – Correctness:
Held: Standing Order No.85 puts an embargo on migration of
reserved candidates who have availed relaxation of age and/or
physical measurements to fill up unreserved vacancies, even if
they have scored higher marks than the cut-off marks prescribed
for the unreserved seats – In view of the bar envisaged in Standing
Order No.85 read with Revised Directive No.29, the High Court
erred in directing the respondents to be selected against the
unreserved posts – Impugned judgment and order set aside.
[Paras 16, 19]

* Author
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 559

Railway Protection Force & Ors. v. Prem Chand Kumar & Ors.

Service law – Direct recruitment – SC/ST/OBC candidates
selected on their own merit availing concessions or
relaxations, if entitled to be considered for appointment under
general category on scoring higher than the cut-off marks in
such category – Posts of Assistant Commandant in Central
Industrial Security Forces (CISF) – Appellant, general category
candidate scored 363 marks while the minimum cut-off marks
in general category was 364 – Scheduled Tribe candidate, who
had availed relaxed physical standards scored higher marks
(366) than the last selected candidate in general category
(364) and was appointed against the general category seat –
Challenged by the appellant – High Court dismissed the
petition holding that the office memo dated 01.07.1998 did
not apply to relaxed physical standards like height, weight
etc., which would vary depending on gender, geographical
location – Correctness:
Held: View expressed by the High Court is concurred with –
Office memo dated 01.07.1998 does not expressly state relaxed
concessions in physical measurements availed by a reserved
candidate would disentitle the candidate from being considered for
appointment under general category if he has scored higher than
the cut-off marks in such category – Interpretation given by the
High Court to the office memorandum is in sync with the stance
taken by the Union of India that the said office memorandum
does not bar the migration of reserved candidates availing
relaxation in physical standards, which depends on the gender/
ethnic background of the candidate concerned – No reason to
differ from the view expressed by the recruiting authority-UPSC
as well as Union of India, with regard to the scope and ambit of
the embargo in the office memorandum, as upheld by the High
Court – Judgment and order of the High Court does not call for
interference. [Paras 7, 8, 12, 13]

Case Law Cited
Deepa E.V. v. Union of India & Ors. [2017] 1 SCR 938 : (2017)
12 SCC 680; Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujarat Public
Service Commission & Ors. [2019] 9 SCR 47 : (2019) 7 SCC 383;
Government (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. [2019]
13 SCR 1056 : (2019) 10 SCC 120 – distinguished.
560 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr. v. State of UP & Ors. [2010] 1 SCR
325 : (2010) 3 SCC 119; Union of India & Ors. v. Sajib Roy,
SLP (C) No(s). 21392-93 of 2019; Railway Protection Force &
Ors. v. Prem Chand Kumar & Ors., Special Leave Petition (Civil)
No. 20866 of 2019 – referred to.

List of Keywords
Reserved category; Relaxation in age and/or physical
measurements; Recruitment process; Unreserved candidates;
Written test and trade test; Migration of reserved candidates;
Recruitment in ancillary posts; Railway Protection Special Force;
Last selected candidate; Appointment; Vacant posts; Standing
Order No.85; Revised Directive No.29; Direct recruitment; SC/
ST/OBC candidates selected on their own merit; Concessions or
relaxations; General category; Posts of Assistant Commandant;
Central Industrial Security Forces (CISF); Minimum cut-off marks;
Relaxed physical standards.

Case Arising From
Civil Appellate Jurisdiction: Civil Appeal No. 11716 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.03.2019 of the High Court
of Delhi at New Delhi in WPC No. 1350 of 2017
With
Civil Appeal No. 11717 of 2025

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellants:
A Mariarputham, Sr. Adv., Mayilsamy K, Dr. Gayathiri A S, Arun
Pandiyan S, P. Soma Sundaram, Sudarshan Lamba.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Mahavir Singh, Sr. Adv., Mrs. Saumya Tandon, B K Satija, Padmesh
Mishra, Arkaj Kumar, Pratyush Srivastva, T S Sabrish, Arvind
Kumar Sharma, Aneesh Mittal, Mrs. Juhi Arora, Ms. Komal Mittal,
Maasir Javed, Virender Singh, Hrishikesh Baruah, Kumar Kshitij,
Utkarsh Dwivedi, Gp. Capt. Karan Singh Bhati, Ms. Chitrangda
Rastravara, Abhijeet Singh, Anirudh Singh, Aishwary Mishra,
Dhananjai Shekhwat, Ms. Anjali Saxena, Ms. Sakshi Aggarwal,
Dashrath Singh, Ms. Ankita Chaudhary, Hrishikesh Baruah,
Utkarsh Dwivedi.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 561

Railway Protection Force & Ors. v. Prem Chand Kumar & Ors.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Joymalya Bagchi, J.

SLP (C) No. 20866/2019

1. Leave granted.
2. Appellants have assailed judgement and order1 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.
3. Shorn of details, factual matrix giving rise to the appeal is as follows :–
3.1 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, namely, Constable
(Water Carrier), Constable (Safaiwala), Constable (Washerman),
Constable (Barber), Constable (Mali), Constable (Tailor) and
Constable (Cobbler) in the ancillary services of the Railway
Protection Force, including the Railway Protection Special
Force. Subsequently, the number of vacancies advertised were
enhanced to 763.
3.2 Clause 4(c) of the Employment Notification provided that the
candidate must be above 18 years and not more than 25 years
to be eligible to apply.
3.3 Upper age relaxation up to 5 years and 3 years was given
for SC/ST and OBC candidates respectively2. Clause 4(d)(v)
provided as follows:-
“No age relaxation is allowed to SC/ST/OBC
candidates applying against unreserved vacancies.”

1 In Writ Petition (C) No. 1350 of 2017.
2 Clause 4(d) of the Employment Notice No. 1/2013.
562 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

3.4 Clause 4(e) prescribed the physical measurements of an
eligible candidate with regard to height and chest (expanded
and unexpanded) for male and female candidates separately.
Concessions with regard to physical measurements for SC/ST
and OBC candidates were also prescribed.
3.5 Clause 5 of the Employment Notification laid down the selection
process stating eligible candidates in all categories shall be
subjected to a written examination, Physical Efficiency Test
(PET), Physical Measurement Test (PMT) and trade test for
recruitment.
3.6 In the written examination, cut-off for general candidates was
35 percent and cut-off for SC/ST candidates was 30 percent.
If successful in the written examination, the candidate would
be called for PET comprising 1600/800 metres run, high jump
and long jump. Though no marks were to be awarded, the
candidate must qualify in all the categories.
3.7 Candidates who succeeded in the written examination, PET and
PMT were to appear in a trade test specific to each category
where such candidate was to secure at least 50 percent marks.
The number of candidates who were to be called for the trade
test was not to exceed three times the prescribed vacancy.
3.8 Certain candidates in the State of Assam filed WP (C) No.
2120/2016 (Japhed Dhan and others vs. Union of India) claiming
that they had been wrongly disqualified in the PMT and PET.
Consequent upon an interim order of the Guwahati High Court
dated 01.04.2016, 74 vacancies of the North Frontier Railway
in Employment Notice No.1/2013 were excluded such that the
vacancies that could be filled up was brought down to 689.
3.9 Pursuant to the aforesaid selection process 400 candidates were
empanelled in different categories. Respondents-writ petitioners
were not empanelled as either they had not qualified trade test
for their respective trade(s) (that is, did not score minimum 50
percent in trade test) or had not qualified the cut-off for their
respective trade(s) in their reserved category or there was no
vacancy in their trade.
4. As a number of vacancies in various categories remained unfilled,
respondents-writ petitioners approached the High Court praying for
a mandamus to appoint them against the unfilled posts.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 563

Railway Protection Force & Ors. v. Prem Chand Kumar & Ors.

5. During pendency of the writ petition, some of the writ petitioners
(proforma respondents herein) were selected from supplementary
list in place of empanelled candidates who were medically unfit or
did not report for medical exam/training etc.
6. After hearing the parties, High Court framed the following issue:
“24. 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?”
7. Stance of the 1st Appellant-RPF before High Court was that though
some of the respondents-writ petitioners belonging to SC/ST category
who availed relaxation of age and/or physical measurements had
secured higher marks in the written examination than the cut-off in
unreserved category relatable to their respective trades, they could
not be treated in unreserved category as they had availed of such
relaxations.
8. In support of such plea, appellants referred to Standing Order No.85
dt. 05.03.20093. Para 14(f) runs as follows:-
“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.”
9. In reply, the respondents-writ petitioners contended the recruitment
of staff in ancillary services was governed by a different standing
order, namely Standing Order No.78 dt. 21.02.20084, which permitted
migration of reserved candidates scoring higher in the merit test to
unreserved category. Para 14(b) of the said Standing Order reads
as follows:-
“Candidates from SC, ST and OBC categories who come
into the general merit list by securing higher marks shall
be selected against unreserved vacancies. If more than
one candidate has obtained the same mark, they should
be arranged in the order of their dates of birth. Those

3 No. 2009-Sec(E)/RC-3/1, New Delhi.
4 No. 2008-Sec(E)/RC-3/18, New Delhi.
564 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

seniors in age will be placed above those junior in age. In
case the dates of birth also happen to be the same they
may be placed alphabetically.”
10. Holding that the latter standing order was applicable, the High Court
allowed the Writ Petition and directed appointment of respondents-
writ petitioners to the vacant posts.
11. Ms. Saumya Tandon, learned counsel for the appellants contends
the employment notification must be read in conjunction with
Revised Directive No.295 dated 06.12.2013 which provides that in
partial modification of Standing Order No. 78 and in supersession
of earlier Directive No. 296, the Standing Order No. 85 applicable to
Constables shall also be applicable to recruitment in ancillary posts
i.e. the present recruitment process.
12. On the other hand, Mr. A. Mariarputham, learned senior counsel
submits that the Revised Directive No.29 does not provide that
Standing Order No.78 is wholly superseded by Standing Order No.85
and Para 14(b) of the said standing order would survive and permit
the reserved candidates, though availing concessions, to be selected
against unreserved posts as they scored higher marks than cut-off
marks for such unreserved posts. For better appreciation, Revised
Directive No.29 is set out as under:–
“GOVERNMENT OF INDIA MINISTRY OF
RAILWAYS (RAILWAY BOARD)
No.2013/Sec (E)/RC-3/142 New Delhi,
dated 06.12.2013
DIRECTIVE-29 (REVISED)
Sub: Procedure regarding recruitment of Constable
(Ancillary) in RPF/RPSF.
Consequent upon placement of all posts of ancillary staff
of RPF/RPSF in PB1 with Grade Pay Rs.2000/- vide
Ministry of Railway’s letter No. PC-VI/2008/1/5/8 dated
03.07.2013 (RBE No.62/2013) and in partial modification of

5 No. 2013/Sec (E)/RC-3/142, New Delhi.
6 Dated 27.09.2013.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 565

Railway Protection Force & Ors. v. Prem Chand Kumar & Ors.

Directive No.24, issued vide letter No. 2008/Sec (Spl.)/6/16,
dt.09.04.2008 and Standing Order No. 78, issued vide
letter No. 2008-Sec(E)RC-3/18, dt. 21.02.2008 as far as
applicable to the recruitment of Constable, Ancillary staff
viz. Constable (Water Carrier), Constable (Safaiwala),
Constable (Barber), Constable (Washerman), Constable
(Mali), Constable (Tailor) and Constable (Cobbler) of RPF/
RPSF and in supersession of Directive-29 dt. 27.09.2013
& its modification dt. 12.11.2013, DG/RPF hereby issues
the following Directive.
For the above said recruitment in RPF/RPSF, procedure
laid down in Standing Order-85, issued vide letter No.2009/
Sec (E)/RC-3/1 dated 05.03.2009, and its modifications
issued vide letter No.2009/Sec (E)/RC-311, dated
21.01.2011, 11.02.2011 and 01.12.2011 for recruitment
of Constable, shall be applicable with following changes.
1. Educational Qualification: Matriculation or equivalent
from a recognized Board/University. Educational
certificate other than State Board/Central Board
should be accompanied with Govt. of India notification
declaring that such qualification is equivalent to
Matriculation /10th Class pass for service under
Central Govt or ITI.
2. TRADE TEST (50 MARKS) shall be conducted in
place of viva-voce: 3 (three) times the number of
candidates who qualify the written examination, PET
and PMT will be put through a Trade Test of 50 marks.
The Trade Test is purely qualifying in nature and
Candidates will have to secure minimum 50% marks
to qualify the Trade Test. Marks obtained in Trade Test
will not be added to the written examination marks for
preparation of final selection of the candidates. The
candidate shall bring their own tools/material required
for their Trade Test. The trade test for different trades
may consist of:
BARBER: Handling of tools, Hair Cutting, Shaving,
etc.
566 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

MALI: Plantations and making grafts, Maintenance of
plants, Knowledge of seeds and their sowing season,
Knowledge and use of fertilizers and indigenous
manures, etc.
SAFAIWALA: Sweeping, dusting, mopping, cleaning
of toilets, Cleaning of Bathrooms, etc.
WASHER MAN: Manual and mechanical washing of
clothes, dry-cleaning ironing and maintenance of all
types of uniform, etc.
WATER CARRIER: Washing of vessels, Kneading of
Atta for making chapattis/ puns for 100 staff, Cutting
of vegetables etc., Cooking of Chapati & Rice for
100 staff, Cooking of vegetable/Dal/Samber etc.
for 100 staff, Cooking of Meat/Fish/Egg/Kheer, Idali
Badakhana etc. TAILOR: Taking measurement and
stitching of Winter and summer uniform of the force
personnel. Knowledge of different type of materials
i.e. fabrics/thread etc. used in trade work. Capability to
carry out minor repairs, trouble-shooting Maintenance
of sewing machine, and ability to recognize tools/
machines used in ·cutting, tailoring, and their correct
identification.
COBBLER: Knowledge of stitching & repairing of
shoes, ability to identify/recognize tools used in the
trade. Ability to identify and recognize different types
of leathers and material used in the trade, and ability
to recognize nails/threads used in sewing shoes. One
should have knowledge of leather sewing machine
& ability to carry out minor repairs.
3. Only one application shall be submitted for one or
more than one trade. However, preference should
be given in the application forms by the candidates
as per their choice.
4. DG/RPF may relax any of the above instructions
in Special Cases on the recommendation of the
concerned CSC.”
(emphasis supplied)
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 567

Railway Protection Force & Ors. v. Prem Chand Kumar & Ors.

13. The Revised Directive No.29 unequivocally shows that in partial
modification of Standing Order No.78 the procedure laid down in
Standing Order No.85 dated 05.03.2009 for recruitment of constables
shall be applicable with certain changes.
14. It is argued that the Revised Directive does not wholly supersede
Standing Order No.78 and partially modifies the said Order with
reference to Standing Order No.85 applicable for recruitment to the
post of Constable and above. As such, para 14(b) of the Standing
Order No. 78 which permits migration of reserved candidates to the
general merit list remains unaltered.
15. The words ‘partial modification’ used in the Revised Directive must
be contextually appreciated to mean that the Standing Order No. 78
prescribing the recruitment process to post of ancillary services shall
remain unaltered to the extent it is not in conflict with the procedure
prescribed in Standing Order No. 85 applicable to recruitment of
Constables.
16. Para 14(f) of the Standing Order No. 85 states only those candidates
in reserved category who have not availed relaxation in age, physical
measurements and qualifying marks in written test may be appointed
in unreserved category and thereby bars the reserved candidates
who have availed such concession from migration to unreserved
category. This para runs counter to Para 14(b) of Standing Order
No. 78 which permits such migration. A partial modification of the
Standing Order No. 78 by Standing Order No. 85 would naturally
have an overriding effect and Para 14(f) of the latter Standing Order
will prevail over Para 14(b) of former Standing Order, putting an
embargo on migration of reserved candidates who have availed
relaxation of age and/or physical measurements to fill up unreserved
vacancies, even if they have scored higher marks than the cut-off
marks prescribed for the unreserved seats.
17. Even otherwise it is relevant to note some of the respondents-writ
petitioners had failed to score marks above the cut-off prescribed
for the unreserved seats or had failed to qualify in their respective
trade tests. The High Court failed to appreciate the aforesaid factual
background and mechanically relied on Jitendra Kumar Singh vs.
State of UP & Ors.7 to direct the respondents-writ petitioners to be
appointed against unreserved seats.

7 (2010) 3 SCC 119.
568 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

18. In Union of India & Ors. vs. Sajib Roy8 this Court held that Jitendra
Singh (supra) is inapplicable to cases where the recruitment rules bar
migration of reserved candidates availing relaxation in age/ fees to
be appointed against unreserved vacancies. The Court summarized
the principles as follows:
“32. …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. That is to say, in the event 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. However, if an
embargo is imposed under relevant recruitment rules, such
reserved candidates shall not be permitted to migrate to
general category seats.”
19. In light of the aforesaid discussion, particularly the bar envisaged in
Standing Order No. 85 read with Revised Directive No. 29, we are
of the view the High Court erred in directing the respondents-writ
petitioners to be selected against the unreserved posts. The impugned
judgment and order is set aside. Appeal is allowed.
20. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

SLP (C) No.28469/2019

1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant has assailed judgment and order dated 27.08.2019 in
W.P. (C) No.10005/2018 passed by the Delhi High Court.
3. In response to Notification No. 45013/9/2009-Pers.I, dated
06.12.2017, issued by the 1st respondent - Union of India for filling
up posts of Assistant Commandant (Executive) in Central Industrial
Security Forces (CISF) through Limited Department Competitive
Examination, appellant applied as a general category candidate. He
was successful in the written examination, physical efficiency test

8 SLP (C) No(s). 21392-93 of 2019.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 569

Railway Protection Force & Ors. v. Prem Chand Kumar & Ors.

and medical eligibility test conducted by 2nd respondent-UPSC. He
appeared in the personality test/interview but was not selected as
the minimum cut-off marks in general category was 364, while he
had scored 363. One of the seats in the general category was filled
by a Scheduled Tribe candidate, i.e., 4th respondent herein, who
had scored higher marks (366) than the last selected candidate in
general category (364).
4. Contending that the Scheduled Tribe candidate, i.e., 4th respondent
had not been selected on same standards as applicable to general
candidates as he had availed concessions with regard to height,9
appellant approached the High Court, praying that the selection list
be quashed and he be selected in the general category. In support
of his prayer, he relied on Office Memorandum No. 36011/1/98-Estt.
(Res), dated 01.07.1998. Relevant provisions of the memorandum
are set out hereinbelow :–
“2. O.M. dated May 22, 1989 referred to above and
the O.M.No.36012/2/96-ESTT (RES) dated July 2,1997
provide that in cases of direct recruitment, the SC/ST/
OBC candidates who are selected on their own merit will
not be adjusted against reserved vacancies.
3. In this connection, it is clarified that only such SC/ST/
OBC candidate who are selected on the same’ standard
as applied to general candidates shall not be adjusted
against reserved vacancies. In other words, when a relaxed
standard is applied in selecting an SC/ ST/ OBC candidates,
for example in the age limit, experience qualification,
permitted number of chances in written examination,
extended zone of consideration larger than what is provided
for general category candidate etc., the SC/ST/OBC
candidates are to be counted against reserved vacancies.
Such candidates would be deemed as unavailable for
consideration against unreserved vacancies.”
(emphasis supplied)

9 As per the notification dated 06.12.2017, the minimum height requirement was 165 cm for male
candidates belonging to the General and Scheduled Caste categories, and 162.5 cm for Scheduled
Tribe candidates. The 4th Respondent’s height was recorded as 163 cm.
570 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

5. It was further contended that the said memorandum was again
reiterated vide Office Memo No. 43011/4/2018-Estt. (Res), dated
04.04.2018 :-
“2. As per instructions issued vide this Department’s OM
No.36012/2/96-Estt. (Res) dated 02.07.1997, in direct
recruitments to Central Government jobs and services
the reserve category candidates who are selected on
the same standard as applied to general candidates
will not be adjusted against reserved vacancies. As per
instructions issued vide DOP&T OM No.36011/1/98-Estt.
(Res) dated 01.07.1998, only when a relaxed standard is
applied in selecting a reserved candidates, for example in
the age limit, experience, qualification, permitted number
of chances in written examination, etc., such candidates
will be counted against reserved vacancies.
3. It has been brought to the notice of this Department by
the Hon’ble Parliamentary Committee on Welfare of OBCs
that these instructions are not being followed in some cases
in direct recruitments to Central Government jobs and
services. It is, therefore, reiterated that while making Direct
Recruitments, guidelines issued vide this Department’s
OM No.36012/2/96-Estt. (Res) dated 02.07.1997 and OM
No.36011/1/98-Estt.(Res) dated 01.07.1998 may be kept
in view by all concerned.”
6. 2nd respondent-UPSC opposed the prayer and in its counter affidavit
clarified that the office memoranda did not bar reserved candidates
who had been permitted to participate in the selection process as
per concessions in physical standards i.e. height, weight, chest
etc. prescribed for various categories, namely, men and women in
general/SC and ST. 2nd respondent clarified as follows :–
“These physical / medical standards as provided in the
Examination Rules are notified by the Government (Ministry
of Home Affairs) and each candidate declared qualified in
the written part of the Examination has to meet with this
requirement for qualifying the same. As such, Physical
Standard Tests / Physical Efficiency Tests & Medical
Standard Tests do not come under the purview of the
Commission. However, it is not out of place to point out
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 571

Railway Protection Force & Ors. v. Prem Chand Kumar & Ors.

here that the physical standards (height and chest) of
woman candidates are lower than the male candidates for
different categories for the aforesaid Examination. But, this
cannot be considered that the woman candidates would
be availing the relaxed physical standards as compared
to the male candidates since this incorrect assumption
could lead to the situation that no woman candidate of
general. category, especially, would be selected as there
is no reservation as such for woman candidates in the
government Service including the CISF. Furthermore,
there will not be any chance for any female candidate to
qualify an Examination on her own merit despite the fact
that she has not availed any relaxation in terms of age,
cut-off marks etc. The similar situation is also applicable
to the ST candidates qualifying the Examination on their
own merit (taking into account age, cut off marks etc.)
with lower physical standards fixed for them. The case of
Shri Sitlhou, the S.T. candidate declared qualified against
General category, falls in the above category as he has
qualified the CISF Examination on his own merit in terms
of age and cut-off marks fixed for the aforesaid CISF
Examination. Moreover, different parameters of Physical
Standards relating to height / weight / chest etc. for male/
female and for different categories of candidates are
prescribed keeping in view gender / race of the candidates
by the Ministry of Home Affairs.”
(emphasis supplied)

7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid stance, the High Court held
the office memo dated 01.07.1998 did not apply to relaxed physical
standards like height, weight etc., which would vary depending on
gender, geographical location and so on, and dismissed the writ
petition. We are in wholesome agreement with such view expressed
by the High Court.
8. We are fortified to come to such conclusion as office memo dated
01.07.1998 does not expressly state relaxed concessions in physical
measurements availed by a reserved candidate would disentitle the
candidate from being considered for appointment under general
category if he has scored higher than the cut-off marks in such category.
572 [2025] 9 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

9. It may not be out of place to note that the present office memorandum
does not expressly refer to relaxation in physical standards unlike
Clause 14(f) of the Standing Order No.85 which is applicable to
recruitment of Railway Protection Force, dealt by us in Railway
Protection Force & Ors. v. Prem Chand Kumar & Ors.10
10. In Deepa E.V. v. Union of India & Ors.,11 Niravkumar Dilipbhai
Makwana v. Gujarat Public Service Commission & Ors.12 and
Government (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors.13 this
Court did not permit migration in light of the embargo in self-same
office memorandum with regard to relaxation of upper age limit,
unlike relaxation in physical standards applicable to the present
case. Thus, the said cases are clearly distinguishable and do not
come to the aid of the appellant.
11. Learned counsel for appellant heavily relies on the expression
‘extended zone of consideration larger than what is provided for
general category candidates etc.’ to contend concessions in physical
standards like height, weight etc. are also included. High Court
rebutted the said argument, holding as such :–
“20. At the outset, it requires to be noticed that there
are physical standards, like height, weight etc. which
are also known as “Enlistment Standards” and there are
other markers of eligibility, which would include age and
educational qualifications. This is also apparent from the
OM dated 1st July 1998, cited by learned counsel for the
Petitioner, which, in the context of “relaxed standards”
illustratively cites “age limit, experience, qualification,
permitted number of chances in written examination,
extended zone of consideration larger than what is provided
for General Category candidates, etc.”. The word “etc.”
has to be read ejusdem generis. It takes colour from the
preceding words which refer to age limit, experience, ·and
qualifications. It does not contemplate physical standards

10 Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 20866/2019.
11 (2017) 12 SCC 680.
12 (2019) 7 SCC 383.
13 (2019) 10 SCC 120.
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 573

Railway Protection Force & Ors. v. Prem Chand Kumar & Ors.

which would vary depending on gender, geographical
location, and so on.”
(emphasis supplied)

12. The interpretation given by the High Court to the office memorandum
is in sync with the stance taken by the 1st respondent-Union of
India that the said office memorandum does not bar the migration
of reserved candidates availing relaxation in physical standards,
which depends on the gender/ethnic background of the candidate
concerned.
13. Given this situation, we find no reason to differ from the view expressed
by the recruiting authority i.e., 2nd respondent-UPSC as well as 1st
Respondent-Union of India, with regard to the scope and ambit of the
embargo in the office memorandum, as upheld by the High Court.
14. In light of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the
judgement and order of the High Court does not call for interference.
Appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.

Result of the case: Civil Appeal No. 11716 of 2025 allowed.
Civil Appeal No. 11717 of 2025 dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain