Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ajay Kumar Roy vs Staff Selection Commission on 26 February, 2026
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench,
New Delhi
O.A. No.1880 of 2015
Orders reserved on : 05.02.2026
Orders pronounced on : 26.02.2026
Hon'ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Ajay Kumar Roy, Ex-Serviceman, Recruit CGLE-2013,
Aged about 42 years,
S/o Sh. Bateshwar Roi,
R/o C/o Sh. Satpal Singh, 134, T.K.D. Village,
New Delhi-44. ...Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Anil Singal)
VERSUS
1. Staff Selection Commission,
Through its Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi.
2. Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT),
Through its Secretary, North Block, New Delhi.
3. Sh. Vinod Kumar Bansal
(Serial No.1138)
4. Sh. Nilesh Kumar Verma
(Serial No.1432)
5. Sh. Anish Kumar
(Serial No.1448)
6. Sh. Manoj Kumar Jha
(Serial No.2707)
7. Sh. Pranav Kumar Singh
(Serial No.2918)
8. Sh. Animesh Kabi
(Serial No.3260)
(Respondent No.3 to 8 to be served through Respondent No.1)
....Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Hanu Bhaskar)
2026.02.27
RAVI KANOJIA10:38:34+05'30'
Item No.32 /C-4 2 OA No.1880/2015
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):
By filing the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-
"1. To quashed and set aside Result dt.25.3.2015 declaring as illegal, ultra-virus, null and void, without jurisdiction and authority and automatically ineffective from its inception and non-existence in the eyes of law being in violation of Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India and contrary to the terms and conditions of Recruitment Advertisement for CGLE-2013.
2. To direct the respondents to prepare the Result of CGLE-2013 strictly according to the terms and conditions of Recruitment Advertisement for CGLE-2013.
3. To direct the respondents to consider the applicant's appointment against the reserved vacancy of Auditor in the offices of CGDA for Ex- Serviceman.
4. To award costs in favor of the applicant and pass any order or orders, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem just & equitable in the facts & circumstances of the case."
FACTS OF THE CASE
2. Facts, as stated by the applicant, are that :
2.1 The applicant is an Ex-Serviceman. The applicant's date of discharge is 30.9.2013.
2.2 The Staff Selection Commission (in short 'SSC') issued Recruitment Advertisement for Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2013 (herein after referred to as 'CGLE-2013) dated 19.01.2023 (Annexure A-2) for various posts, including the post of Auditor in the office of CGDA (Post Code 'U') with the last to apply as 15.02.2013. The result of the post of Auditor was to be prepared solely based on the marks obtained in the written Examination.
2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:38:34+05'30' Item No.32 /C-4 3 OA No.1880/2015 2.3 The said Recruitment Advertisement for CGLE-2013 in relation to Ex-Serviceman category provided as under :
"NOTE-I : Ex-servicemen who have already secured employment in civil side under Central Government on regular basis after availing of the benefits of reservation given to ex-servicemen for their re- employment are NOT eligible for fee concession or for claiming benefits of reservation under EXS category. However, they are eligible for age relaxation as per rules.
NOTE-III : For any serviceman of the three Armed Forces of the Union to be treated as Ex-Serviceman for the purpose of securing the benefits of reservation, he must have already acquired, at the relevant time of submitting his application for the Post / Service, the status of ex- serviceman and /or is in a position to establish his acquired entitlement by documentary evidence from the competent authority that he would complete specified term of engagement from the Armed Forces within the stipulated period of one year from the CLOSING DATE (i.e. 15.02.2013) or otherwise than by way of dismissal or discharge on account of misconduct or inefficiency."
2.4 According to the applicant, he, being eligible to apply under Ex- Serviceman category, applied for CGLE-2013. He appeared in the Written Examination for the post in question. The result of the said written examination was declared on 25.03.2015 (Annexure A-1), wherein the applicant was shown to have secured a total of 263.5 marks, whereas the cut-off marks for the post of Auditor in the office of CGDA were 284. The cut off for the post of Auditor in the office of C&AG is 322.25 marks. The cut off for the post of Accountant in the office of C&AG is 298.25 marks. There are total 477 vacancies for the above-mentioned posts of Auditor/Accountant, only some portion of the result is being annexed to show the impugned action/discrepancies. 2.5 The applicant is challenging the result dated 25.3.2015 since many candidates like respondent Nos.3 to 8 (who are being impleaded as respondents in representative capacity in this OA) have been selected under Ex-Serviceman Category. However, they are ineligible to be 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:38:34+05'30' Item No.32 /C-4 4 OA No.1880/2015 considered under Ex-Serviceman category as per the terms and conditions of the said Recruitment Advertisement for CGLE-2013. 2.6 The selection of respondent Nos.3 to 8 and similarly placed candidates under Ex-Serviceman category is bad in law since some of them have already secured employment in civil side under Central Government on regular basis after availing of the benefits of reservation given to ex-servicemen for their re-employment. Secondly, some of them have acquired the status of ex-serviceman after 15.02.2014. 2.7 In case the ineligible Ex-Servicemen are deleted from the Result dated 25.3.2015, the cut off marks for the Ex-Serviceman category drastically comes to 260 marks for the post of Auditor in offices under CGDA. The applicant will also get appointment since the Result dated 25.3.2015 runs into 186 pages and each page contains name of one or two ineligible Ex-serviceman candidates.
2.8 The applicant approached the office of the SSC - Respondent No.1 to know the reason for the impugned discrepancies in the Result dated 25.3.2015. The SSC provided the copy of the DoP&T's OM dated 14.8.2014 (Annexure A-3).
2.9 Therefore, the applicant has been left with no other efficacious remedy except to approach this Tribunal against the action of the SSC/DoP&T, i.e., Respondent Nos.1 and 2, in applying the Office Memorandum dated 14.08.2014 to the ongoing recruitment process, namely CGLE-2013, for which the last date for submission of applications was 15.02.2013. Further, the said action is contrary to 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:38:34+05'30' Item No.32 /C-4 5 OA No.1880/2015 Note-I and Note-III of the Recruitment Advertisement for CGLE- 2013. Moreover, it is a settled principle of law that the rules of the game cannot be changed or altered after the game has commenced, i.e., after the closing date of 15.02.2013.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondent No.1 has filed reply opposing the claim of the applicant. The applicant has also filed his written submissions in pursuance to a direction issued by this Tribunal vide Order dated 09.01.2025.
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT
4. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that as per OM dated 15.12.1979 amended upto 15.2.2013, i.e., last amended on 4.10.2012, the second time benefit of Ex-serviceman will not be admissible to those Ex- servicemen like the private respondents, who had already availed of the benefit of Ex-Serviceman on first re-employment. Therefore, they are not entitled for getting second time benefit of Ex-Serviceman category in CGLE-2013 for which the last date to apply was 15.2.2013. 4.1 Learned counsel for the applicant also argued that the application of DoP&T's OM dated 14.8.2014 to the ongoing Recruitment i.e. CGLE- 2013 for which the last date to apply was 15.2.2013 is illegal, unjustified and totally unreasonable. Moreover, the same is contrary to the Para 5 of the said OM dated 14.8.2014 itself which provides that it shall take effect from the date of issuance.
2026.02.27
RAVI KANOJIA10:38:34+05'30'
Item No.32 /C-4 6 OA No.1880/2015
4.2 Learned counsel for the applicant further argued that OM dated 14.8.2014 amounts to the amendment of the already issued instructions In this regard, learned counsel submitted that it is not a clarification of the original that is applicable retrospectively. Thus, the OM dated 14.8.2014 will not apply to the Recruitment i.e. CGLE-2013. Therefore, the impugned result dated 25.3.2015 is liable to be set aside and quashed with a direction to the official respondents to prepare the result in consonance with the provisions contained in NOTE-I & NOTE-III of the Recruitment Advertisement for CGLE-2013 and without applying the OM dated 14.08.2014.
4.3 Learned counsel also argued that application of aforesaid DoP&T's OM dated 14.8.2014 is prospective in nature, as is clearly evident from Para 4 of the said OM itself that restrict its application to only those candidates, who give self-declaration/undertaking to the concerned employer about the date-wise details of application for various vacancies for which he/she had applied for before joining the initial employment.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT No.1
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents by referring to the counter reply filed on behalf of SSC, i.e., respondent No.1, contended that the applicant is a candidate of CGL Examination 2013 for which notice of examination was published in Employment News/Rozgar Samachar dated 19.01.13. The applicant applied for the post preferences TVUYWXZ@# under Ex-Servicemen (OBC) category. He was allotted 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:38:34+05'30' Item No.32 /C-4 7 OA No.1880/2015 Roll No.2201024059. The result of the said exam was declared on 25.03.15. As per result, he scored 101 marks in Tier-1, 61.50 marks in T2P1 & 101 marks in T2P2 (Total 263.50 marks). The post-wise vacancies, selected candidates with cut off marks in the Ex-Servicemen (OBC) category is as follows;
Category Preference Vacancy Filled Lowest marks 7 (EXS/OBC) T 0 0 0 7 V 0 0 0 7 U 0 0 0 7 Y 0 0 0 7 W 0 0 0 7 X 1 1 313 7 Z 26 19 282.5 7 @ 6 4 281.75 7 # 0 0 0 5.1 Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 submitted that the applicant had not been allocated to any post due to obtaining marks lower than the cut off marks fixed by the SCC-respondent No.1 in his category. However, the applicant has challenged the result of CGL-2013 stating that many of the candidates, who do not fulfill the criteria of being Ex-serviceman as per conditions laid down in the said Advertisement for CGLE-2013 had been selected and were/had been offered appointments. The said averment of the applicant is that if the following ineligible Ex-servicemen named below are deleted from the Result dated 25.03.2015, the cut off marks for the Ex-servicemen category drastically comes to 260 marks for the post of Auditors in Offices under CGDA and his name would be available in the select list:-
Sl. No. Respondent No. Name
1. 3 Shri Vinod Kumar Bansal
2026.02.27
RAVI KANOJIA10:38:34+05'30'
Item No.32 /C-4 8 OA No.1880/2015
2. 4 Shri Nilesh Kumar Verma
3. 5 Shri Anish Kumar
4. 6 Shri Manoj Kumar Jha
5. 7 Shri Pranav Kumar Singh
6. 8 Shri Animesh Kabi
5.2 Learned counsel further submitted that the said allegation levelled by the applicant are totally baseless and also not supported by material evidence. The allegation has also not been prima facie established. The category of the applicant is also not matching with above six candidates. Details regarding above 06 (six) candidates are as under:
Name of candidate / Sl. No. Remarks Roll No. / Cat. & Rank Vinod Kumar Bansal Allocated to C&AG for Jr. Acctt. Post. Roll No. 2201046989 Dossier already sent to user dept. after 01 Cat. EXS/UR verification. Marks: T1-105.25, T2P1- Rank: SL/111/8547 91.5 & T2P2-121.75 (Total 318.5) Nilesh Kumar Verma; Allocated to CGDA for Auditor Post. Roll No. 2201072311 Dossier already sent to user dept. after 02 Cat. EXS/UR verification. Marks: T1-103, T2P1- Rank: SL/111/8981 93.5 & T2P2-90.25 (Total-286.75) Anish Kumar; Allocated to CGDA for Auditor Post. Roll No. 2201073658 Dossier already sent to user dept. after 03 Cat. EXS/UR verification. Marks: T1-101, T2P1-122 Rank: SL/111/8658 & T2P2-88.25 (Total 311.25) Manoj Kumar Jha Allocated to C&AG for Jr. Acctt. Post. Roll No. 2201169089 Dossier already sent to user dept. after 04 Cat. EXS/UR verification. Marks: T1-117.25, T2P1- Rank: SL/111/8661 92 & T2P2-102 (Total 311.25) Pranav Kumar Singh Allocated to CGDA for Auditor Post. Roll No. 2201184595 Dossier already sent to user dept. after 05 Cat. EXS/UR verification. Marks: T1-89.75, T2P1- Rank: SL/111/8993 87 & T2P2-108.75 (Total 285.5) 5.3 Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the respondent No.1 - SSC is a recruiting agency and, therefore, its role is over after nomination of the candidates to the user Department for which the candidates have been selected. The user Department completes the pre-appointment formalities. In case any discrepancies are found in their appointments, the user Department would have taken 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:38:34+05'30' Item No.32 /C-4 9 OA No.1880/2015 further action for suppression/concealment of facts relevant to their appointments.
5.4 Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that the respondent No.1 - SSC conducts all its examinations strictly within the ambit of its Notice, which is considered sacrosanct for all its recruitments. The official respondents as well as the candidates and all concerned are bound by the provisions of the Notice of the instant recruitment. The allegation of the applicant that ineligible candidates like respondent Nos.3 to 8 had been selected is misconceived. The respondent No.1 - SSC had adopted a fair and impartial process as per the law and provisions of the notification of the examination. The applicant has not been allocated to any post due to low marks against cut off marks fixed by the respondent No.1 - SSC in his category. This is the major cause of non-considering his prayer in the said OA. Thus, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal of this OA.
6. We also find that while passing the order dated 09.01.2025, this Tribunal noted the contentions of the applicant that three issues are involved in this case for adjudication in this case, as the main issue is regarding grant of reservation to the Ex-serviceman in the recruitment exercise conducted by the SSC, which are reproduced as under:-
(i) Whether the reservation granted to the Ex-servicemen shall be considered under the horizontal or the vertical reservation?
(ii) If they are given Horizontal reservation, then would they fall under the compartmentalised or over-all category?
2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:38:34+05'30' Item No.32 /C-4 10 OA No.1880/2015
(iii) Concerning the OM dated 14.08.2014, whether the same is applicable on this recruitment or not?
CONTENTIONS OF THE APPLICANT
7. Learned counsel for the applicant reiterated that the applicant applied under Ex-Serviceman category in response to above Advertisement for CGLE-2013 for various posts, including "Auditor and Accountant" and as per said Advertisement, the vacancies are reserved for Ex-Serviceman category also. Further, no minimum pre-decided cut off Marks were mentioned in the advertisement for any category. However, exact number of total vacancies were yet be finalized as mentioned in the said advertisement that "Final selection through the Combined Graduate Level Examination to specific categories of posts would be subject to receipt of intimation of confirmed number of vacancies from the concerned indenting Ministries/Department/ Office/Cadres before declaration of results."
7.1 Learned counsel again contended that admittedly, the applicant secured 263.5 marks whereas cut off marks for the post of "Auditor" and "Accountant" are 284 and 298.25 marks respectively as per result dated 25.3.2015 (Annexure A-1) and the number of vacancies were also disclosed in the Result dated 25.3.2015. The reservation for Ex- Serviceman category is not "Vertical Reservation as meant for SC-ST- OBC Category" but it is "Overall Horizontal Reservation for Ex- servicemen" and the number of vacancies were 1024, whereas only 855 were selected.
2026.02.27
RAVI KANOJIA10:38:34+05'30'
Item No.32 /C-4 11 OA No.1880/2015
7.2 Learned counsel also submitted that in the month of May 2015, the applicant filed the present OA challenging the result dated 25.3.2015 in which this Tribunal was pleased to issue notices to the respondents. Thereafter, the respondent No.1 filed reply contending that the applicant does not belong to the category of the private respondents. However, they failed to appreciate that there is no "Compartmentalised Horizontal Reservation for Ex-Servicemen" but it is "Overall Horizontal Reservation for Ex-servicemen". Therefore, there is no question of the applicant belonging to UR, SC, ST or OBC category. This issue has been clarified by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of "Rekha Sharma vs Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur and another" in CA No.5051/23 vide Judgment dt.21.8.2024. As such, the Result dated 25.3.2015 is bad in law being contrary to the principles governing the application of "Overall Horizontal Reservation" while preparing the Result. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide Judgment in case of "Rajesh Kumar Daria vs Rajasthan PSC, reported in 2007 (8) SCC 785, had laid down as to how the result involving Horizontal reservation has to be prepared. Thus, the Result dated 25.3.2015 is bad in law being contrary to the Note-I under Para 5(B), which provides that Ex- servicemen already secured employment in civil side will not be entitled to Reservation meant for Ex-Servicemen. However, the SSC- Respondent No.1 selected those also, who had already secured employment in Civil Side applying subsequent DoP&T's OM dated 14.8.2014.
2026.02.27
RAVI KANOJIA10:38:34+05'30'
Item No.32 /C-4 12 OA No.1880/2015
7.3 Learned counsel argued that the Result dated 25.3.2015 is also bad in law being contrary to the Note-III under Para 5(B), which also provides that Ex-servicemen must have acquired the status of Ex- servicemen on the date of application or by 14.2.2014. However, the SSC
- Respondent No.1 selected those also, who could not get the status by 14.2.2014.
7.4 Learned counsel also submitted that the case of the applicant is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra), paras 6, 8 and 9 and Rekha Sharma (supra), para 9 thereof.
ANALYSIS
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as written submission and the judgments on which applicant's counsel placed reliance.
9. Since the applicant has already suggested the issues as noted above by this Tribunal in Order dated 9.1.2025, we proceed to adjudicate the same, which are reproduced below:-
(i) Whether the reservation granted to the Ex-servicemen shall be considered under the horizontal or the vertical reservation?
(ii) If they are given Horizontal reservation, then would they fall under the compartmentalised or over-all category?
(iii) Concerning the OM dated 14.08.2014, whether the same is applicable on this recruitment or not?
2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:38:34+05'30' Item No.32 /C-4 13 OA No.1880/2015
10. Before delving upon the first two issues, we deem it appropriate to observe that the dispute with regard to Horizontal reservation was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 119, as in which the issue revolved around the issue of reservation of posts for Backward Classes, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Women Candidates and Sportspersons. An advertisement was issued for direct recruitment to the post of Sub-Inspectors in Civil police and Platoon Commanders. According to the State, the break down of the posts was 1319 Posts for Sub-Inspectors in Civil Police and 255 posts for Platoon Commanders. Out of these posts, 2% posts were reserved for outstanding Sportspersons. The recruitments to these posts were to be made by a separate advertisement. Apart from above 10% of the posts were reserved for women. The Division Bench of the High Court had held that:
(i) The reservation in favour of women is constitutionally permissible and is valid.
(ii) That the 52 vacancies of general category kept reserved for Women candidates have been illegally carried forward for the next selection instead of filing in from the general category male candidates.
(iii) Since the posts remained vacant, the same had to be filled from the general category male candidates and could not be carried forward.
(iv) Reservation in favour of sportspersons quota (2%) has also been upheld. It was held that the aforesaid reservation has to operate horizontally. Therefore, the 29 vacancies which remained unfilled could not have been carried forward.
2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:38:34+05'30' Item No.32 /C-4 14 OA No.1880/2015 10.1 The vacancies reserved for women and for the outstanding sportsperson had to be filled by applying "horizontal reservation". Non- carrying forward of the vacancies was permissible. This would be in consonance with the law laid down by the Supreme Court of India in the case of Indra Sawhney. Further, it is apt to state that in the case of vertical reservation, reserved category candidates may compete for non- reserved post and if they are appointed to non-reserved posts on their own merit, their number will not be counted against reserved quota but the aforesaid principle will not apply to horizontal (special) reservation as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Service Commission vs. Mamta Bisht, reported in (2010) 12 SCC 204.
11. We also deem it appropriate to refer the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court on which reliance has been placed by the applicant's counsel. First one, is in the case of Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra), reliance has been placed on paras 6, 8 and 9 thereof by the applicant's counsel, which are reproduced below:-
"6. Before examining whether the reservation provision relating to women, had been correctly applied, it will be advantageous to refer to the nature of horizontal reservation and the manner of its application. In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385] the principle of horizontal reservation was explained thus: (SCC pp. 735-36, para 812) "[A]ll reservations are not of the same nature. There are two types of reservations, which may, for the sake of convenience, be referred to as 'vertical reservations' and 'horizontal reservations'. The reservations in favour of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes [under Article 16(4)] may be called vertical reservations whereas reservations in favour of physically handicapped [under Clause (1) of Article 16] can be referred to as horizontal reservations. Horizontal reservations cut across the vertical reservations--what is called interlocking reservations. To be more precise, suppose 3% of the 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:38:34+05'30' Item No.32 /C-4 15 OA No.1880/2015 vacancies are reserved in favour of physically handicapped persons; this would be a reservation relatable to Clause (1) of Article 16. The persons selected against this quota will be placed in the appropriate category; if he belongs to SC category he will be placed in that quota by making necessary adjustments; similarly, if he belongs to open competition (OC) category, he will be placed in that category by making necessary adjustments. Even after providing for these horizontal reservations, the percentage of reservations in favour of Backward Class of citizens remains--and should remain--the same."
......
8. We may also refer to two related aspects before considering the facts of this case. The first is about the description of horizontal reservation. For example, if there are 200 vacancies and 15% is the vertical reservation for SC and 30% is the horizontal reservation for women, the proper description of the number of posts reserved for SC, should be:
"For SC: 30 posts, of which 9 posts are for women." We find that many a time this is wrongly described thus: "For SC: 21 posts for men and 9 posts for women, in all 30 posts." Obviously, there is, and there can be, no reservation category of "male" or "men".
9. The second relates to the difference between the nature of vertical reservation and horizontal reservation. Social reservations in favour of SC, ST and OBC under Article 16(4) are "vertical reservations". Special reservations in favour of physically handicapped, women, etc., under Articles 16(1) or 15(3) are "horizontal reservations". Where a vertical reservation is made in favour of a Backward Class under Article 16(4), the candidates belonging to such Backward Class, may compete for non- reserved posts and if they are appointed to the non-reserved posts on their own merit, their number will not be counted against the quota reserved for respective Backward Class. Therefore, if the number of SC candidates, who by their own merit, get selected to open competition vacancies, equals or even exceeds the percentage of posts reserved for SC candidates, it cannot be said that the reservation quota for SCs has been filled. The entire reservation quota will be intact and available in addition to those selected under open competition category. (Vide Indra Sawhney [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 : 1992 SCC (L&S) Supp 1 : (1992) 22 ATC 385] , R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab [(1995) 2 SCC 745 : 1995 SCC (L&S) 548 : (1995) 29 ATC 481] , Union of India v. Virpal Singh Chauhan [(1995) 6 SCC 684 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 1 : (1995) 31 ATC 813] and Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul [(1996) 3 SCC 253] .) But the aforesaid principle applicable to vertical (social) reservations will not apply to horizontal (special) reservations. Where a special reservation for women is provided within the social reservation for Scheduled Castes, the proper procedure is first to fill up the quota for Scheduled Castes in order of merit and then find out the number of candidates among them who belong to the special reservation group of "Scheduled Caste women". If the number of women in such list is equal to or more than the number of special reservation quota, then there is no need for further selection towards the special reservation quota. Only if there is any shortfall, the requisite number of Scheduled Caste women shall have to be taken by deleting the corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of the list relating to Scheduled Castes. To this extent, horizontal (special) reservation differs from vertical (social) 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:38:34+05'30' Item No.32 /C-4 16 OA No.1880/2015 reservation. Thus women selected on merit within the vertical reservation quota will be counted against the horizontal reservation for women. Let us illustrate by an example:
If 19 posts are reserved for SCs (of which the quota for women is four), 19 SC candidates shall have to be first listed in accordance with merit, from out of the successful eligible candidates. If such list of 19 candidates contains four SC woman candidates, then there is no need to disturb the list by including any further SC woman candidate. On the other hand, if the list of 19 SC candidates contains only two woman candidates, then the next two SC woman candidates in accordance with merit, will have to be included in the list and corresponding number of candidates from the bottom of such list shall have to be deleted, so as to ensure that the final 19 selected SC candidates contain four woman SC candidates. (But if the list of 19 SC candidates contains more than four woman candidates, selected on own merit, all of them will continue in the list and there is no question of deleting the excess woman candidates on the ground that "SC women" have been selected in excess of the prescribed internal quota of four.)"
12. Further, second case relied upon by the applicant's counsel is the case of Rekha Sharma (supra) para 9 thereof referred which reads as under:-
"9. It is quite well settled that the Horizontal Reservation is of two types: - (i) Compartmentalised Horizontal Reservation, and (ii) Overall Horizontal Reservation. The Compartmentalised Horizontal Reservation is such wherein the proportionate vacancies are reserved in each vertical reserved category. However, in case of Overall Horizontal Reservation, the Reservation is provided on the total post advertised i.e. such reservation is not specific to each vertical category. As per the advertisement dated 22.07.2021, the vacancies in case of women candidates were classified/identified for each category i.e. General, OBC, SC, ST, MBC whereas for the Persons with benchmark disabilities, no such vacancies were mentioned in the said categories. Further, in the three-tier process of the Examination Scheme, the number of candidates to be admitted to the Main Examination were fifteen times the total number of vacancies (category wise) and the candidates had to qualify themselves by securing the minimum percentage of marks fixed for each of the categories in the Preliminary Examination. Therefore, the Persons with benchmark disabilities falling under the Overall Horizontal Reservation had to qualify for the Mains Examination by securing minimum cut off marks fixed for the concerned category in which he/she had applied."
13. We have also gone through the above two judgments meticulously, we find that in Rajesh Kumar Daria's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted the types of reservation, correct way to describe 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:38:34+05'30' Item No.32 /C-4 17 OA No.1880/2015 Horizontal Reservation and difference in application. Firstly, there are two kinds of reservations: Vertical Reservation - for SC, ST, OBC under Article 16(4) and Horizontal Reservation - for women, persons with disabilities, etc., under Articles 16(1) or 15(3). Further, the Horizontal reservation cuts across vertical categories. For example, a disabled or women candidate selected will be placed in their respective category (SC/OBC/General). So far as correct way to describe Horizontal Reservation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that If 30 SC posts exist and 9 are for women, it should be written as:
"30 posts for SC, out of which 9 are for women."
13.1 It is incorrect to say "21 posts for men and 9 for women," since there is no reservation category for men.
13.2 With regard to difference in application, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that Vertical reservation: Candidates selected on merit in open category are not counted against reserved quotas. However, in Horizontal reservation: First fill the vertical quota (e.g., SC list) by merit. Then check whether the required number of women/disabled candidates is included, if sufficient, then no change and if less, include additional women candidates by removing candidates from the bottom of the list and further, if more women are selected on merit, all will remain, none will be removed. 13.3 In Rekha Sharma case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that horizontal reservation can be of two types i.e., (i) Compartmentalised Horizontal Reservation, i.e., separate 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:38:34+05'30' Item No.32 /C-4 18 OA No.1880/2015 quota within each category (General, OBC, SC, ST, etc.) and Overall Horizontal Reservation, applied to the total number of posts, not category-wise. In the referred recruitment, women's reservation was category-wise, i.e., reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities was overall, not category-specific. Therefore, such candidates had to qualify according to the cut-off marks of the category, they applied under to reach the next stage of examination.
14. At this stage, it is also apt to mention that DoP&T vide OM dated 25.12.2025 issued a compendium of Guidelines on reservation for Ex- servicemen, para 3 thereof is reproduced as under:-
"3. RESERVATION OF VACANCIES (I) The reservation for Ex-servicemen is horizontal in nature. (II) Ten per cent of the vacancies in the posts up to of the level of the Assistant Commandant in all para-military forces; (III) Ten per cent of the vacancies in Group C posts; and (IV) Twenty per cent of the vacancies in Group D posts.
The vacancies mentioned above includes permanent vacancies filled initially on a temporary basis and temporary vacancies which are likely to be made permanent or are likely to continue for three months and more, to be filled by direct recruitment in any year shall be reserved for being filled by ex-servicemen.
The Scheduled Castes, the Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Class Candidates selected against the vacancies reserved for ex- servicemen shall be adjusted against vacancies reserved for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes, respectively; provided that if a Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe or the Other Backward Class ex-serviceman is selected against the vacancy reserved for Ex-Servicemen and vacancy reserved for the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe or the Other Backward Class, as the case may be, is not available to adjust such ex-servicemen, he shall be adjusted in future against the next available vacancy reserved for the Scheduled Caste or the Scheduled Tribe or the Other Backward Class, as the case may be. If there is an increase in the reservation for ex-servicemen, the additional vacancies that become available are to be utilised first by the appointment of disabled ex- servicemen and if all such vacancies are not utilised, they shall then be made available to the other ex-servicemen. References:
Notification No.: 39016/10/79-Estt(C) dated 15th December,1979 36034/1/2006-Estt (Res) dated 4th October, 2012 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:38:34+05'30' Item No.32 /C-4 19 OA No.1880/2015 Office Memorandum/Letter No.:36012/58/92-Estt (SCT) dated 01st December, 1994"
(emphasis supplied) 14.1 Thus, it is evident that reservation for Ex-servicemen is horizontal in nature and applies to direct recruitment vacancies in a given year, including permanent vacancies filled initially on a temporary basis and temporary vacancies likely to continue for three months or more. Ten per cent of vacancies up to the level of Assistant Commandant in all para-military forces and in Group 'C' posts, and twenty per cent of vacancies in Group 'D' posts, are reserved for Ex-servicemen. Candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC), who are selected against Ex- servicemen vacancies are to be adjusted against their respective SC/ST/OBC reserved vacancies; where such category vacancy is not immediately available, adjustment shall be made against the next available vacancy of the respective category. In case of any increase in Ex-servicemen reservation, the additional vacancies shall first be filled by disabled Ex-servicemen, and if any remain unfilled, they shall be offered to other Ex-servicemen, in terms of Notification Nos. 39016/10/79-Estt(C) dated 15.12.1979, 36034/1/2006-Estt (Res) dated 04.10.2012, and O.M. No. 36012/58/92-Estt (SCT) dated 01.12.1994.
15. The first issue for consideration is whether reservation granted to Ex-Servicemen in the recruitment exercise conducted by the respondents is horizontal or vertical in nature. It is a settled principle of service jurisprudence that reservation for Ex-Servicemen operates as horizontal reservation cutting across the vertical categories such as UR, 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:38:34+05'30' Item No.32 /C-4 20 OA No.1880/2015 SC, ST and OBC. The manner in which horizontal reservation is to be applied has been authoritatively explained by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar Daria (supra), wherein it was held that the selection must first be prepared on the basis of vertical merit and thereafter horizontal reservation is to be adjusted within such lists. Therefore, the reservation meant for Ex-Servicemen in CGLE-2013 cannot be treated as vertical reservation and any approach contrary thereto would be inconsistent with settled law.
16. The second issue relates to whether the horizontal reservation in favour of Ex-Servicemen is compartmentalised within each category or operates as overall horizontal reservation. In the absence of any specific provision in the said Recruitment Advertisement or statutory rules mandating compartmentalisation, horizontal reservation has to be treated, as overall and interlocking in nature. The principle that horizontal reservation operates across categories unless expressly compartmentalised has also been reaffirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rekha Sharma (supra), wherein it was held that horizontal reservation must be applied through adjustment in the overall merit list. In the present recruitment, no rule has been brought on record showing compartmentalised application, hence, Ex-Servicemen reservation is to be treated as overall horizontal reservation. Thus, the above two issues are answered accordingly.
17. So far as issue (iii) as noted in para 9 above, i.e., Concerning the OM dated 14.08.2014, whether the same is applicable on this recruitment or not, is concerned, we observe that as per the 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:38:34+05'30' Item No.32 /C-4 21 OA No.1880/2015 advertisement in question the closing date of applications was 15.02.2013. It is a well-settled legal principle that recruitment processes must be governed by the rules and conditions existing on the date of advertisement and that the rules of the game cannot be altered after commencement of the selection process. As such, since the DoP&T's OM dated 14.08.2014 came into existence even subsequent to the closing date of CGLE-2013 and is prospective in nature, as provided therein, its application to an ongoing recruitment would be impermissible in law as held in a catena of cases by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and followed by the Hon'ble High Courts and Tribunals. Consequently, the selection process is required to be tested only in light of the terms and conditions contained in the said Recruitment Advertisement, including NOTE-I and NOTE-III, and not by applying subsequent executive instructions.
18. The conclusion of above analysis is that that reservation for Ex- servicemen in CGLE-2013 is horizontal in nature and operates as overall horizontal reservation in the absence of any statutory provision for compartmentalisation. Further, the DoP&T's OM dated 14.08.2014, being prospective, cannot be applied to the recruitment process initiated prior to its issuance, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a catena of cases.
19. In view of the foregoing discussion and the settled principles governing horizontal reservation, this Tribunal holds that reservation for Ex-Servicemen in the recruitment process in question is horizontal in nature and operates as an overall horizontal reservation in the 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:38:34+05'30' Item No.32 /C-4 22 OA No.1880/2015 absence of any express provision for compartmentalisation. The selection process, therefore, ought to have been undertaken by first preparing the merit list under the respective vertical categories and thereafter adjusting the horizontal reservation in accordance with law.
20. We further hold that the executive instructions contained in DoP&T's OM dated 14.08.2014, being prospective in operation and issued subsequent to the closing date of the recruitment advertisement, could not have been applied to the recruitment process which had already commenced. The recruitment was required to be governed strictly by the terms and conditions of the advertisement, including NOTE-I and NOTE-III of the above advertisement, and any deviation therefrom would be legally unsustainable.
21. At this stage, it is noted that the applicant has challenged the selection of respondent Nos.3 to 8 and similarly placed candidates under the Ex-Servicemen category on the grounds that some had already secured regular civil employment after availing Ex-Servicemen reservation and some of them had not acquired the requisite Ex- servicemen status within the stipulated period under the recruitment advertisement, i.e., 14.2.2014. If established, such circumstances would amount to violation of NOTE-I and NOTE-III of the advertisement and would affect the validity of the select list to that extent.
22. The applicant has further contended that exclusion of such allegedly ineligible candidates from the impugned result dated 25.03.2015 would materially alter the cut-off marks for the Ex- servicemen category and may render him eligible for consideration. The 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:38:34+05'30' Item No.32 /C-4 23 OA No.1880/2015 precise effect on cut-off marks, however, requires factual verification by the competent authority.
23. In response to these specific allegations, the respondent No.1 has not furnished any substantive clarification on eligibility of the concerned candidates, and has merely stated that SSC acts only as a recruiting agency, whose role concludes upon nomination of selected candidates, and that any discrepancies relating to eligibility or suppression of facts are to be examined by the respective user departments at the stage of appointments.
24. In light of the above assertions, and considering the settled principle that the recruitment process must strictly be adhered to the eligibility conditions contained in the advertisement and cannot permit ineligible candidates to be considered under a reserved category, this Tribunal finds it necessary that the respondents undertake a fresh scrutiny of the eligibility of candidates selected under the Ex- Servicemen category. Such verification shall, in particular, ascertain and record a clear finding, as to whether any of the selected candidates had previously availed the benefit of reservation in any prior civil employment, and/or whether they had failed to acquire or possess the requisite Ex-servicemen status within the prescribed cut-off date or within the stipulated time frame under the applicable rules and advertisement conditions.
25. Accordingly, the allegations raised by the applicant regarding inclusion of ineligible candidates assume material significance in determining the legality of the impugned result and form an additional 2026.02.27 RAVI KANOJIA10:38:34+05'30' Item No.32 /C-4 24 OA No.1880/2015 basis for directing reconsideration and re-preparation of the select list in accordance with the recruitment advertisement and applicable legal principles.
26. In the facts and circumstances of the case and for the forgoing reason, we dispose of this OA with the following directions:-
(i) The impugned result dated 25.03.2015 to the extent it concerns preparation of the select list under the Ex-servicemen category, is set aside;
(ii) The respondents are directed to undertake a comprehensive re-
scrutiny of the eligibility of all candidates selected under the Ex- servicemen category, strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions stipulated in the recruitment advertisement and the settled principles of law governing horizontal reservation. Upon completion of such verification, the respondents shall re-draw the select list, re-determine the cut-off marks in accordance with law, and thereafter consider the case of the applicant for appointment to the post in question, if found eligible and falling within the revised zone of selection. In the event the applicant is found entitled to appointment, he shall be appointed to the said post with all consequential benefits. However, it is clarified that his seniority shall be fixed in accordance with his rightful position in the revised merit list; his pay shall be fixed notionally from the date on which the last similarly situated candidate was appointed, and he shall be entitled to actual monetary benefits from the date of his actual appointment.
2026.02.27
RAVI KANOJIA10:38:34+05'30'
Item No.32 /C-4 25 OA No.1880/2015
(iii) The aforesaid exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
27. No order as to costs.
28. Pending MA(s), if any, shall stand disposed of accordingly.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (Manish Garg)
Member (A) Member (J)
/ravi/
2026.02.27
RAVI KANOJIA10:38:34+05'30'