'Grave Injustice': J&K High Court Says Scheduled Caste Candidates Cannot Be Denied Open Merit Posts Over Domicile Relaxation
Jammu & Kashmir High Court ruled SC candidates with regional physical relaxations cannot be denied jobs solely for reserved category application.
Published : July 17, 2026 at 6:39 PM IST
Srinagar: The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh on Friday ruled that Scheduled Caste (SC) candidates who received physical standard relaxations due to their regional domicile cannot be denied jobs solely for applying under the reserved category.
Calling the recruitment process discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, Justice Rajnesh Oswal directed the Union government to appoint the petitioners against available vacancies in the Constable (GD) recruitment or, if no vacancies exist, create supernumerary posts for their appointment.
In a 15-page judgment, pronounced today after being reserved on June 30, 2026, the court disposed of a writ petition filed by Amit Kundal and three others challenging the 2021 selection list for Constable (GD) posts in the Border Security Force and Assam Rifles under the Staff Selection Commission's 2018 recruitment.
The petitioners argued that despite securing higher marks than several selected candidates in the unreserved category, they were denied appointment because the authorities treated them as candidates who had availed “relaxed standards” under the Scheduled Caste quota. They maintained that the only relaxation extended to them related to height and chest measurements available uniformly to residents of Jammu and Kashmir, and not because of their caste status.
The Union of India opposed the plea, contending that since the petitioners had applied under the Scheduled Caste category and had availed relaxation in physical standards, Paragraph 11 (xiv) of the recruitment notice required that they be counted only against reserved vacancies. It also relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Union of India vs Sajib Roy (2025).
Rejecting this stand, the High Court examined the recruitment notice and found that the reduced height and chest standards were not linked to the Scheduled Caste status. Instead, they were available to all candidates belonging to Jammu and Kashmir and certain other specified regions.
The court observed that, “Consequently, it is clear that the height relaxation extended to petitioner Nos. 2, 3, and 4 was attributable exclusively to their domicile in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, and was entirely unrelated to their caste status.”
On chest measurements, the court similarly held, “Thus, it is evident that petitioner Nos. 1 and 4 were granted chest relaxation solely by virtue of their domicile of the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, independent of their caste category.”
Justice Oswal held that the recruitment authorities had failed to establish that the petitioners received any relaxation reserved exclusively for Scheduled Caste candidates.
The judgment stated, “The respondents have failed to demonstrate that the petitioners were granted any relaxed standards beyond those generally available to the candidates outside the reserved categories (SC, ST, OBC, and Ex-Servicemen). Consequently, the official respondents cannot rely upon Paragraph 11(xiv) of the Notice to contend that merely because the petitioners applied under the SC category, they must be counted exclusively against the reserved quota.”
The court further ruled that the authorities' approach effectively penalised the petitioners because of their Scheduled Caste status.
In one of the strongest observations in the judgment, Justice Oswal said, "The petitioners have not been granted the benefit of relaxation in height and chest measurements on account of their SC category status. As such, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners' SC status has resulted in a distinct disadvantage to them. The distinction drawn by the official respondents in their response is discriminatory and directly contravenes Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the impugned action of the respondents is wholly unsustainable and cannot be countenanced in law."
The High Court also relied on earlier decisions of the Gauhati High Court in Jitendra Thakur vs Union of India and the Delhi High Court in Hemant Pokhriyal vs Staff Selection Commission. Those judgments held that regional relaxations in physical standards cannot deprive meritorious reserved-category candidates of consideration in the unreserved category because such relaxations are unrelated to caste-based reservation.
Distinguishing the Supreme Court's ruling in Sajib Roy, the court observed that the precedent dealt with a candidate who had availed age relaxation specifically linked to OBC status. In contrast, the present petitioners had received no concession because they belonged to the Scheduled Caste category.
The court recorded, "Instead, they received a relaxation based on their domicile, which was uniformly available to all applicants regardless of category."
While holding that lower-merit candidates had been selected over the petitioners, the High Court declined to cancel their appointments because they had already undergone training and had been serving for about five years.
The court observed, "This Court has no hesitation in holding that a grave injustice has been caused to the petitioners, who were excluded from selection despite possessing higher merit than the candidates selected by the official respondents. Ordinarily, the appointment of candidates possessing lower merit must be set aside. However, taking into consideration that the Union of India has expended substantial public funds on their training and that the said candidates have been in active service for the past five years, ousting them at this late stage would be harsh and iniquitous, particularly since no fault can be attributed to them."
During the proceedings, the Union informed the court that no vacancies from the 2018 recruitment remained because they had been carried forward into subsequent recruitment cycles, and later recruitments had also concluded.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Gaurav Pradhan vs State of Rajasthan, the High Court directed the authorities to appoint the petitioners against available vacancies. If vacancies were unavailable, it ordered the creation of supernumerary posts, provided there was no legal impediment. The authorities were directed to pass consequential orders within three months after receiving a copy of the judgment.
Also Read
