RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE & ORS. versus PREM CHAND KUMAR & ORS. (09/09/2025) — Supreme Court headnote

AI-generated headnote. Verify against the judgment before relying on it. Paragraph numbers refer to the judgment.

Summary

Two appeals on migration of reserved-category candidates to unreserved vacancies. In the Railway Protection Force recruitment of ancillary constables, Revised Directive No. 29 made Standing Order No. 85 applicable in partial modification of Standing Order No. 78, so Para 14(f) of SO 85, which bars candidates who availed relaxation in age or physical measurements from being counted against unreserved vacancies, prevails over Para 14(b) of SO 78; the Delhi High Court's direction to appoint such candidates against unreserved posts was set aside. In the CISF Assistant Commandant limited departmental examination, the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 01.07.1998 does not treat relaxed physical standards such as height as a 'relaxed standard', so a Scheduled Tribe candidate who scored above the general cut-off was rightly selected in the general category.

Issues

Whether Para 14(b) of Standing Order No. 78, which permits SC/ST/OBC candidates securing higher marks to be selected against unreserved vacancies, survived Revised Directive No. 29 dated 06.12.2013 that made Standing Order No. 85 applicable to recruitment of RPF ancillary staff, or whether Para 14(f) of Standing Order No. 85 barring migration of candidates who availed relaxation prevails.
Whether the High Court erred in relying on Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. to direct appointment of reserved candidates who had availed age and physical-measurement relaxations against unreserved posts.
Whether the Office Memorandum No. 36011/1/98-Estt.(Res) dated 01.07.1998 bars a Scheduled Tribe candidate who availed relaxed physical (height) standards, but scored above the general category cut-off, from selection in the general category.

Provisions considered

Para 14(f), Standing Order No. 85 dated 05.03.2009 (Railway Protection Force recruitment)Only SC/ST/OBC candidates selected purely on merit without availing any relaxation in age, physical measurements and qualifying marks in the written test are not counted against reserved vacancies. The Court read this as an embargo on migration of reserved candidates who availed such relaxation to unreserved vacancies, which overrides the contrary Para 14(b) of Standing Order No. 78. (¶¶ 8, 16, 19)
Para 14(b), Standing Order No. 78 dated 21.02.2008 (Railway Protection Force, ancillary staff recruitment)Candidates from SC/ST/OBC categories who come into the general merit list by securing higher marks are to be selected against unreserved vacancies. Held to survive Revised Directive No. 29 only to the extent not in conflict with Standing Order No. 85; being in conflict with Para 14(f) of SO 85, it is overridden. (¶¶ 9, 14, 15, 16)
Procedure regarding recruitment of Constable (Ancillary) in RPF/RPSF, Revised Directive No. 29 dated 06.12.2013 (DG/RPF)Issued in partial modification of Standing Order No. 78 and in supersession of the earlier Directive 29, it makes the procedure in Standing Order No. 85 applicable to recruitment of ancillary constables with specified changes. 'Partial modification' was construed to mean that SO 78 remains unaltered only to the extent it does not conflict with SO 85. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 15)
Paras 2 and 3 (relaxed standards for SC/ST/OBC candidates), Office Memorandum No. 36011/1/98-Estt.(Res) dated 01.07.1998, Department of Personnel and TrainingSC/ST/OBC candidates selected on the same standard as general candidates are not adjusted against reserved vacancies; where a relaxed standard is applied, for example in age limit, experience, qualification, permitted number of chances or extended zone of consideration 'etc.', they count against reserved vacancies. The Court held that 'etc.' is to be read ejusdem generis with age, experience and qualifications and does not extend to relaxed physical standards such as height, which vary with gender and geography. (¶¶ 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13)

Held

(RPF appeal, SLP (C) No. 20866/2019) Revised Directive No. 29 unequivocally provides that, in partial modification of Standing Order No. 78, the procedure in Standing Order No. 85 for recruitment of constables applies to recruitment of ancillary staff with certain changes. The words 'partial modification' must be read contextually to mean that SO 78 remains unaltered only to the extent it is not in conflict with the procedure prescribed in SO 85. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15)
(RPF appeal) Para 14(f) of Standing Order No. 85 permits only those reserved-category candidates who have not availed relaxation in age, physical measurements and qualifying marks to be appointed in the unreserved category, and thereby bars those who availed such concessions from migrating. It runs counter to Para 14(b) of SO 78; as the modifying provision it has overriding effect, so reserved candidates who availed relaxation of age and/or physical measurements cannot fill unreserved vacancies even if they scored above the cut-off for unreserved seats. (¶ 16)
(RPF appeal) Some of the writ petitioners had not even scored above the unreserved cut-off or had failed their trade tests; the High Court overlooked this and mechanically relied on Jitendra Kumar Singh. As held in Union of India v. Sajib Roy, that decision is inapplicable where the recruitment rules bar migration of reserved candidates who availed relaxation: where there is no embargo in the rules or employment notification, reserved candidates scoring higher than the last selected unreserved candidate may migrate, but where an embargo is imposed they cannot. In light of the bar in SO 85 read with Revised Directive No. 29, the High Court erred in directing selection against unreserved posts. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19)
(CISF appeal, SLP (C) No. 28469/2019) The Office Memorandum dated 01.07.1998 does not expressly state that relaxed physical measurements availed by a reserved candidate disentitle him from consideration in the general category if he scored above its cut-off; unlike Clause 14(f) of Standing Order No. 85, it does not refer to physical standards at all. Deepa E.V., Niravkumar Dilipbhai Makwana and Pradeep Kumar, which denied migration under the same memorandum, concerned relaxation of the upper age limit and are distinguishable. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 10)
(CISF appeal) The expression 'extended zone of consideration larger than what is provided for general category candidates etc.' in the memorandum takes colour from the preceding words (age limit, experience, qualification, number of chances) and is to be read ejusdem generis; it does not contemplate physical standards, which vary with gender and geographical location. This reading is in sync with the stand of UPSC and the Union of India, and there was no reason to differ from the recruiting authority's view as upheld by the High Court. (¶¶ 6, 11, 12, 13, 14)

Result

Civil Appeal No. 11716 of 2025 (Railway Protection Force) allowed; judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 29.03.2019 in WP(C) No. 1350 of 2017 set aside. Civil Appeal No. 11717 of 2025 (CISF Assistant Commandant candidate) dismissed; judgment of the Delhi High Court dated 27.08.2019 in WP(C) No. 10005/2018 upheld. Pending applications disposed of.