Court Rules Candidates Cannot Claim Reservation Benefits After Participating Under Notification Without Reservation Provisions; Highlights Importance of Challenging Notification Timely
In a significant judgment dated August 17, 2026, the Kerala High Court (Division Bench) dismissed the petition filed by Dr. Anumon V Divakaran and others challenging the Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute for Medical Sciences and Technology (SCTIMST) recruitment process for failure to provide reservation benefits. The petitioners, belonging to the Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) communities, contended that they were entitled to reservation benefits during the selection for promotion or appointment under a notification (Annexure A1) issued by SCTIMST.
The crux of the case revolved around the fact that the selection notification issued by SCTIMST did not contain any reservation provisions for SC/ST candidates at the time of recruitment. Despite this, the petitioners participated in the selection process but were found not qualified. Subsequently, they claimed reservation benefits, which the respondents denied.
The Court examined the legal principles underlying reservation policies and the timing of their application. It was observed that the petitioners willingly took part in the selection process knowing the absence of any reservation provisions. The Court underscored that the notification clearly did not provide for any reservation for SC/ST candidates, although it did offer certain concessions such as fee exemptions and travel fare reimbursements as per government rules. These concessions, however, did not amount to reservation benefits in the selection process.
The Court further highlighted that for reservations to be implemented effectively, a roster for communal rotation or a formulated reservation policy must be in place. At the time of issuing the Annexure A1 notification, no such roster or policy existed within SCTIMST. The respondents informed the Court that subsequently, the reservation policy was adopted and incorporated into their rules for future notifications.
The judgment emphasized that if the petitioners had genuine grievances regarding the absence of reservation provisions, their proper recourse was to challenge the notification before participating in the process. By participating without objection, they waived their right to raise the issue later. The Court rejected the petitioners' attempt to claim reservation benefits after failing the selection process.
Additionally, the petitioners raised concerns about the validity of the selection process beyond the reservation issue. The Court noted that these contentions were neither raised before the Central Administrative Tribunal nor reflected in its orders. Therefore, the appropriate remedy would have been to seek a review of the Tribunal’s order rather than directly approaching the High Court.
In conclusion, the Kerala High Court upheld the Central Administrative Tribunal’s decision dismissing the petitioners' claims and ruled that reservation benefits cannot be claimed post participation in a selection process under a notification that did not originally provide for such benefits. The judgment reinforces the principle that candidates must challenge any irregularities in recruitment notifications at the earliest stage and cannot seek preferential treatment retrospectively.
This ruling has significant implications for recruitment processes in autonomous bodies and other institutions receiving government aid, clarifying that reservation benefits must be clearly stipulated and applicable at the time of notification to be enforceable.
Bottom Line:
Reservation policy cannot be claimed post participation in the selection process if such reservation provisions were not part of the original notification.
Statutory provision(s): Principles relate to reservation policies under Government of India rules and service law regarding reservation and administrative tribunals.
