Article 16 of Constitution

Source: Supreme Court  

Why in News? 

Recently, Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi held that reserved category candidates who use age relaxation to qualify cannot later claim selection in unreserved (general) seats if recruitment rules bar such migration. It set aside a High Court order that had allowed OBC candidates in an SSC Constable recruitment to be considered under the general category.  

• The Supreme Court held this in the matter of  Union Of India & Ors. v. Sajib Roy (2025).

What was the Background of Union Of India & Ors. v.  Sajib Roy (2025) ? 

• The Staff Selection Commission (SSC) published an employment notification for recruitment of Constables (General Duty) in various paramilitary forces including BSF, CRPF, ITBP, SSB, NIA, SSF, and Rifleman positions in Assam Rifles. The recruitment process comprised physical tests, written examinations, and medical examinations. 
• The employment notification prescribed an age limit of 18 to 23 years as on 01.08.2015 for eligible candidates. Age relaxation was provided to various reserved category candidates, with OBC candidates receiving a relaxation of 3 years, extending their upper age limit to 26 years. 
• All respondent-writ petitioners belonged to the OBC category and availed the age relaxation benefit to participate in the recruitment process. Without this relaxation, they would not have been eligible to apply as they exceeded the general category age limit of 23 years. 
• After the recruitment process concluded, these OBC candidates were declared unsuccessful as their scores were lower than the last selected candidate in the OBC category for their respective departments. However, their marks were higher than the last selected candidate in the unreserved (general) category for those same departments. 
• Claiming entitlement to migrate to the unreserved category based on their higher scores compared to general category candidates, the respondent-writ petitioners approached the High Court. They argued that merit should prevail and they should be considered for appointment in the unreserved category. 
• The Union of India opposed this prayer, contending that since the respondents had applied in the OBC category after availing age relaxation, they could not be considered eligible for appointment in the unreserved category. The Union relied on Office Memorandum No. 36011/1/98-Estt. (Res) dated 01.07.1998, which explicitly barred such migration. 
• The respondents had participated in the entire recruitment process without challenging the constitutional validity of the office memorandum that prohibited their migration to the general category. They only raised this issue after the results were declared and they found themselves in a position where migration would benefit them. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Supreme Court observed that the central issue was whether the High Court erred in applying the ratio of Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of UP despite the existence of Office Memorandum dated 01th July 1998 which explicitly prohibited migration of reserved candidates who had availed age relaxation to unreserved category positions. 
• The Court noted that Jitendra Kumar was decided based on specific statutory provisions and government instructions that expressly permitted such migration, whereas the present case was governed by the 1998 office memorandum which specifically barred such migration for candidates who had availed any relaxations. 
• The Court emphasised that the ratio in a judgement must be read within the facts of a particular case and cannot have universal application. The Court observed that the principle in Jitendra Kumar could not be applied where express statutory bars existed, citing Deepa E.V. v. Union of India which held similar views. 
• The Court observed that the High Court had mechanically applied the Jitendra Kumar ratio without appreciating the different factual matrix, particularly the existence of the office memorandum prohibiting migration. 
• After analysing various precedents, the Court held that whether reserved candidates who avail relaxations may be recruited against unreserved seats depends on the facts of each case. Where no embargo exists in recruitment rules, such candidates scoring higher than the last selected unreserved candidate may migrate. However, where an embargo is imposed under relevant recruitment rules, such candidates cannot migrate to general category seats. 
• The Court concluded that since the respondents had availed age relaxation concessions and an express bar existed under the 1998 office memorandum, the High Court was wrong in permitting their consideration for unreserved category appointments. 

What is Article 16 of Indian Constitution? 

• Article 16(1) - Equality of Opportunity in Public Employment:  
  • This provision guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State.  
  • It was referenced to examine whether age and fee relaxations for reserved candidates violate the equality principle by creating disparate treatment.  
  • The provision establishes that relaxations operate as pre-competition eligibility concessions rather than merit-based advantages, maintaining the level-playing field once actual competition begins through written examinations.  
  • The clause ensures that government positions remain accessible to all qualified individuals on merit-based criteria without discrimination based on caste, religion, or other prohibited grounds. 
• Article 16(4) - Enabling Provision for Reservation:  
  • This clause empowers the State to make provisions for reservation of appointments in favour of backward classes not adequately represented in services. It creates a constitutional exception to Article 16(1), allowing affirmative action measures.  
  • Age and fee relaxations are characterized as "incidental and ancillary provisions" or "aids to reservation" that make the core reservation concept effective, enabling meaningful participation without compromising merit-based selection principles. 
  • The provision permits both direct reservation of posts and supportive measures like relaxed eligibility criteria to address historical disadvantages faced by backward classes. 
• Article 16(2) - Non-discrimination Clause:  
  • This sub-clause prohibits discrimination in public employment on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, descent, place of birth, or residence. 
  • The provision works in conjunction with Article 16(4) to ensure that while affirmative action is permitted for backward classes, no citizen faces discrimination in accessing public employment opportunities based on prohibited characteristics. 
• Constitutional Balance:  
  • The interplay between Article 16(1) and 16(4) creates a constitutional framework that balances individual equality rights with collective affirmative action needs.  
  • This balance allows the State to implement reservation policies while ensuring that merit remains the primary criterion for selection, with relaxations serving only to expand the pool of eligible candidates rather than lowering selection standard

Case Laws Referenced 

• Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of UP (2010): Established that age and fee relaxations are "aids to reservation" enabling merit-based competition without affecting level-playing field, permitting migration to unreserved seats for higher-scoring candidates, but based on specific UP statutory framework that expressly allowed such migration. 
• Deepa E. V. v. Union of India (2017): Distinguished Jitendra Kumar Singh, holding its principles inapplicable where express statutory bars exist, specifically noting that the 1998 office memorandum's prohibition rendered Jitendra Kumar's general principles irrelevant to recruitment processes with migration bars. 
• Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan (2018): Confirmed that Jitendra Kumar Singh's observations cannot assist reserved candidates seeking migration where recruitment rules contain express embargo provisions, emphasizing statutory schemes with contrary circulars cannot be extended beyond their specific contexts. 
• Saurav Yadav v. State of UP (2021): Addressed women OBC candidates' adjustment against general category vacancies under horizontal reservation, permitting migration where candidates hadn't availed special benefits and no express prohibition existed in recruitment rules.