Summary
For the Rajasthan police recruitments commenced in 2010, the governing 2008 circular barred migration to unreserved vacancies by reserved-category candidates who had used age relaxation. A later circular could not alter that recruitment’s applicable scheme. The Court protected existing appointees but directed appointment of the displaced meritorious appellants, against vacancies or supernumerary posts.
Issues
- Which reservation circular governed migration in the recruitments commenced in 2010.
- Whether age-relaxed candidates could be counted against unreserved vacancies under that scheme.
- How relief should accommodate candidates already appointed.
Provisions considered
- Rule 7(1), Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989The reproduced rule linked reservation to Government orders in force at recruitment; the 2008 circular therefore governed the disputed selection. (¶¶ 13–17, 45–46)
Held
- Migration depended on the applicable statutory and executive scheme. Jitendra Kumar Singh concerned a different Uttar Pradesh scheme and did not override Rajasthan’s unchallenged contrary circular; Deepa E.V. supported enforcing the express restriction. (¶ 23–39)
- The 2011 circular issued during selection did not govern these recruitments. Under the applicable 2008 circular, fee concession alone was distinguished from age and other special relaxations. Age-relaxed candidates were not eligible for migration to the disputed unreserved vacancies. (¶¶ 14–17, 45–48)
- Already appointed reserved-category candidates were not at fault and were protected from displacement. The eligible displaced writ petitioners/appellants were to receive appointment according to merit within three months; existing vacancies were to be used, with supernumerary posts if necessary until ordinary vacancies arose. (¶ 48–50)
Result
Appeals allowed; State directed to appoint eligible displaced appellants while preserving existing appointees, using the specified vacancy or supernumerary-post mechanism.