New Delhi

The Delhi High Court has held that ex-servicemen who avail age relaxation to participate in a recruitment process cannot later claim consideration under the unreserved category, even if they score higher than some shortlisted general-category candidates.

Dismissing a writ petition filed by several former servicemen, Justice Sanjeev Narula observed that eligibility secured through a concession places candidates on a distinct footing. The court ruled that a candidate who crosses the eligibility threshold by using a category-specific relaxation cannot simultaneously seek treatment as an unreserved candidate at the stage of shortlisting or selection.

The petitioners had challenged their exclusion from document verification in a recruitment drive conducted by the Airports Authority of India for non-executive posts in the Northern Region. They argued that their higher marks entitled them to “migration” into the general category.

The court, however, noted that the petitioners exceeded the upper age limit for unreserved candidates and were eligible to sit for the examination only because they availed the age relaxation applicable to ex-servicemen. It clarified that such candidates can be considered against unreserved vacancies only if all eligibility conditions—including age—are met without any relaxation.

Explaining that ex-servicemen reservation is horizontal and cuts across categories, the court said migration to unreserved seats is governed by recruitment rules and executive instructions. Referring to guidelines issued by the Department of Personnel and Training, it held that if age relaxation is used, consideration must remain confined to the ex-servicemen quota.

The court also observed that document verification was conducted through category-wise shortlisting based on a prescribed ratio, and since the petitioners did not fall within the merit zone of the ex-servicemen category, their exclusion was not arbitrary.

ALSO READ: Bangladeshi voters show culture and language bind them more than religion

Rejecting the plea that merit alone should permit migration, the court said open competition operates within the framework of applicable rules and policies. Finding no arbitrariness or illegality, the High Court dismissed the petition.