Court rules that domicile-based relaxation does not impede SC candidates from unreserved selection, mandates appointment against vacancies or creation of supernumerary posts.
In a landmark ruling dated July 17, 2026, the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court delivered a significant judgment in favor of four Scheduled Caste (SC) candidates who were unjustly excluded from recruitment in the Border Security Force (BSF) despite having higher merit. The petitioners, Amit Kundal and others, challenged the select list for the post of Constable (General Duty) in various branches, alleging that candidates with lower marks were favored in the open merit category. Justice Rajnesh Oswal presided over the case, emphasizing the constitutional principles of equality and non-discrimination.
The petitioners, who are permanent residents of Jammu & Kashmir, were granted physical standard relaxations based on their domicile status, not their caste. Despite scoring higher than the last selected candidate in the open merit list, they were not considered for unreserved vacancies. The court criticized the misapplication of the reservation policy, which led to their exclusion.
Justice Oswal highlighted that the relaxation of physical standards due to domicile applies uniformly to both reserved and unreserved categories. The court held that the petitioners did not avail any caste-based relaxation and thus should not have been restricted to reserved vacancies. This misinterpretation was deemed discriminatory and a violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Indian Constitution.
In its judgment, the court directed the official respondents to either appoint the petitioners against existing vacancies or create supernumerary posts for their adjustment. This decision ensures that the merit of the candidates is acknowledged and rectifies the injustice caused by the flawed application of the reservation policy. The court also noted the significant public funds invested in training the less meritorious candidates, emphasizing a balanced approach to rectify the situation without unnecessary displacement of current appointees.
This judgment reinforces the principle that merit-based selection should not be compromised by administrative misinterpretations, especially when constitutional rights are at stake. The ruling sets a precedent for similar cases, advocating for fair recruitment practices and adherence to the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution.
Bottom line:-
Relaxation granted to candidates on the basis of domicile, rather than caste, cannot disqualify them from being considered under unreserved vacancies if they possess higher merit.
Statutory provision(s):
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.
Amit Kundal v. Union of India, (Jammu & Kashmir And Ladakh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2942598
