IBA Brochure Clause 2.2(III) | Reserved Category Candidates Availing Age Relaxation Cannot Migrate to General Category: Himachal Pradesh HC

The Himachal Pradesh High Court has clarified the legal position regarding migration of reserved category candidates to general category posts in recruitment processes. The judgment establishes that such migration is permissible only if the candidate did not avail any relaxation in eligibility criteria, particularly age limits, during the selection process.

Background & Facts

The Dispute

The petitioner, Sapna Kumari, challenged the appointment of respondent No.2 to the post of Part-Time Sweeper in Punjab National Bank (PNB). The dispute arose from a recruitment process initiated by PNB for 27 posts of Part-Time Sweepers under the Hamirpur Circle, covering Hamirpur, Una, and Bilaspur Districts.

Key Facts

• Advertisement Details: Notification issued inviting applications for 27 posts of Part-Time Sweepers (Annexure P-1)
  • Age limit: 18-24 years for General Category
  • Age relaxation: 5 years for SC/ST candidates, 3 years for OBC/Ex-servicemen
  • Vacancy distribution: 15 General, 6 SC, 5 OBC, 1 ST
  • Last date for applications: 30.12.2016
• Selection Process:
  • Applications shortlisted category-wise as per Circular Letter No.10 of 2016 dated 04.06.2016 (Annexure P-2)
  • Merit lists prepared separately for each category based on age and qualification
  • Document verification conducted on 11.03.2017 (letter dated 28.02.2017, Annexure P-3)
• Merit List Positions (Annexure P-4):
  • Petitioner: Serial No.7 in SC category (Waiting List No.1)
  • Respondent No.2: Serial No.10 in SC category, but Serial No.1 in General Category under "Remaining Candidates"

Procedural History

• 2016: Advertisement issued on 01.12.2016
• 30.12.2016: Last date for application submission
• 28.02.2017: Letter issued for document verification
• 11.03.2017: Document verification conducted
• 2017: Merit list finalized (Annexure P-4)
• 2017: Appointment offered to respondent No.2
• 2017: Present writ petition (CWP No. 2856 of 2017) filed challenging the appointment

The Parties' Positions

For the Petitioner:

• Contended that respondent No.2 was originally listed in SC category at Serial No.10
• Argued that respondent No.2 should not have been appointed against a General Category post
• Emphasized that petitioner was next in line for SC category appointment (Waiting List No.1)

For the Respondents:

• Respondent No.1 (PNB):
  • Argued that respondent No.2 participated without availing age relaxation
  • Cited Clause 2.2 (III) of IBA Brochure for SC/ST/OBC candidates (Annexure R-3)
  • Contended that respondent No.2 was eligible for General Category consideration
• Respondent No.2:
  • Supported PNB's position
  • Emphasized compliance with recruitment rules

Relief Sought

The petitioner sought:

1. Quashing of respondent No.2's appointment
2. Appointment of petitioner against the post of Part-Time Sweeper
3. Seniority from the date other candidates were granted appointment

The Legal Issue

The central question was whether a reserved category candidate who availed age relaxation during the selection process could be considered for appointment against an unreserved (General Category) post, particularly when another reserved category candidate who did not avail relaxation was appointed to such post.

Arguments Presented

For the Petitioner

• Relied on the merit list position to argue that respondent No.2's appointment was irregular
• Contended that respondent No.2 should have been considered only within the SC category
• Emphasized that petitioner, being next in line, should have been appointed

For the Respondents

• Respondent No.1 (PNB):
  • Cited Clause 2.2 (III) of IBA Brochure which states:

    "With effect from 19.7.1989 in cases of direct recruitment the SC and ST candidates who are selected on their own merit without relaxed standards along with candidates belonging to the other communities, will not be adjusted against the reserved share of vacancies. The reserved vacancies will be filled up separately from amongst the eligible SC and ST candidates who are lower in merit than the last candidate on the merit list but otherwise found suitable for appointment even by relaxed standards, if necessary"

  • Argued that respondent No.2 participated without availing age relaxation and thus qualified for General Category consideration
  • Distinguished petitioner's case, who availed age relaxation and thus could not be considered for General Category

The Court's Analysis

The Court examined the recruitment rules and the legal position established by the Supreme Court and this High Court:

1. Legal Framework:

   • The Court relied on Clause 2.2 (III) of IBA Brochure for SC/ST/OBC candidates, which permits reserved category candidates who did not avail relaxation to be considered for General Category posts
   • Noted that the petitioner availed age relaxation (being 27 years old against the 24-year upper limit for General Category)
   • Observed that respondent No.2 participated without availing any relaxation

2. Precedent Application:

   • Cited the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India and others vs. Sajib Roy (SLP (C) Nos. 21392-21393 of 2019, decided on 09.09.2025)
   • Followed the judgment in Chaya and others vs. State of Maharashtra and another (2025 INSC 1084, 2026 SCC Online SC 457)
   • Applied the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Mohit Gupta vs. State of H.P. and others (LPA No. 506 of 2024)
   • The Court held:

     "It is well settled that reserved category candidates who have availed of concession/relaxation can only be permitted to migrate to an unreserved seat if the rules so permit. Migration of a reserved category candidate to the General Category is permissible only if the reserved category candidate has participated in the process not on relaxed standards."

3. Factual Application:

   • Found that respondent No.2 did not avail any age relaxation and thus qualified for General Category consideration
   • Distinguished petitioner's case, who availed age relaxation and thus could not be considered for General Category
   • Concluded that the rules permitted respondent No.2's appointment against the General Category post

The Verdict

The Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that:

• The appointment of respondent No.2 was in accordance with the recruitment rules
• The petitioner, having availed age relaxation, could not be considered for a General Category post
• No merit was found in the petitioner's challenge
• The pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also dismissed

What This Means For Similar Cases

Migration to General Category Requires Strict Compliance with Rules

• Reserved category candidates seeking appointment against General Category posts must ensure they did not avail any relaxation in eligibility criteria
• Recruitment authorities must strictly apply Clause 2.2 (III) of IBA Brochure and similar provisions
• Key Takeaway: Availing age relaxation or other concessions automatically disqualifies a candidate from General Category consideration

Merit List Preparation Must Follow Legal Precedents

• Merit lists must be prepared category-wise and in accordance with Supreme Court judgments
• Actionable Steps for Practitioners:
  • Verify whether the candidate availed any relaxation during the selection process
  • Check if the recruitment rules permit migration to General Category
  • Ensure compliance with Chaya and others vs. State of Maharashtra and Mohit Gupta vs. State of H.P. judgments

Judicial Review of Recruitment Processes

• Courts will scrutinize compliance with reservation policies and migration rules
• Practical Implications:
  • Recruitment authorities must maintain transparent records of relaxations availed
  • Candidates should be clearly informed about the implications of availing relaxations
  • Any deviation from established legal principles will likely be set aside by courts