Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
C Jayanthi vs Ut Of Pondicherry on 26 February, 2026
1 OA/310/01116/2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH
OA/310/01116/2016
Dated this the 26th day of February, Two Thousand Twenty Six
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN. MEMBER (J)
AND
HON'BLE MR. M.L. SRIVASTAVA MEMBER(A)
C. Jayanthi,
W/o Surenthiran,
No.4A, Mettu Street,
Karasur Village,
Villiyanur Commune,
Puducherry. .. Applicant
By Advocate M/s. Balan Haridas
Vs.
l. Union of India
rep by its Secretary,
Government of Puducherry
Electricity Department,
Puducherry
2. Superintending Engineer,
Government of Puducherry,
Puducherry.
3. M. Maheswaran,
No.15, Usha Street,
Ariyur & Post,
Puducherry.
2 OA/310/01116/2016
4. A. Vijayakumar,
No.15, 1st Cross Street,
Goudert Nagar, Govinda Salai
Puducherry
5. R. Ganesh,
27, Main Road,
Kunichampet
Thirukanur P.O.
Puducherry.
6. A. Sireevasan
No.11, Usha Street,
Ariyur & Post,
Puducherry.
7. K. Sadhishkumar,
No.167, Panruti Road,
Madukarai
Puducherry. ...Respondents
By Advocate Mr. M. R. Syed Mustafa for R.1 & R. 2
3 OA/310/01116/2016
ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member) Challenging the impugned order, dated 29.06.2016, whereby the applicant was informed of her non-selection to the post of Construction Helper (WC) in not on gender basis but purely on merit basis, the applicant had filed the OA to quash the said order and consequently prayed for a direction to the 1st and 2nd respondents to consider and appoint her to the said post from the date when the respondents 2 to 7 were appointed with all consequential benefits.
2. The facts leading to the filing of the OA are as follows:
The Applicant has passed SSLC and completed ITI in the trade of Wireman and belongs to the Vanniyar community, which is classified as a Most Backward Community (MBC). She has also registered her name with the Employment Exchange. The 2nd Respondent issued a Notification, dated 03.06.2015 for recruitment to the post of Construction Helper (Work Charged), and the Applicant applied for the same. The selection process was based on marks obtained in the ITI final examination, SSLC examination, apprentice training in the Electricity Department, and seniority in the Employment Exchange. The Applicant was awarded 137.771 marks out of 175 and was placed at Serial No. 20 on 4 OA/310/01116/2016 the waiting list. Subsequently, the 2nd Respondent issued appointment orders to Respondents No. 3 to 7, who also belong to the OBC category but had secured lesser marks than the Applicant. When the Applicant raised an objection, the 2nd Respondent issued the impugned order, against which the Applicant filed the present OA seeking justice.
3. The learned counsel for the Applicant contends that the Applicant, being from a reserved category, was eligible to be considered under the unreserved category and that the denial on the ground of having crossed the age limit is without merit. The age limit for OBC candidates is 35 years, and the Applicant was eligible for consideration under the unreserved category, having scored 137.771 marks, which is higher than the cut-off of 136.700 for the unreserved category.
4. He further submitted that the Respondents 3 to 7, though belonging to the OBC category and having secured fewer marks than the Applicant, were selected under the unreserved category solely on the ground that they had not exceeded the age of 32 years. He contended that the 2nd Respondent, at its discretion, arbitrarily changed the category for appointments. In the first place, the Applicant was fully eligible to be considered for unreserved category vacancies at the time of application.
5 OA/310/01116/2016 Secondly, the Applicant cannot be denied appointment on the pretext that Respondents 3 to 7 were appointed under the unreserved category while she is deemed ineligible for the same category merely because she has crossed the age of 32 years.
5. The learned counsel relied on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Tamil Nadu & Others vs. K. Shobana & Others, Civil Appeal Nos. 3745-54 of 2020, reported in (2021) 4 SCC 686, and the Madras High Court in W.P. No. 5105 of 2024 and batch of cases, order dated 27.02.2024, in support of his contentions and prayed for the relief to be granted to the applicant.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Recruitment Notification invited applications from Indian citizens residing in UT Puducherry for 180 existing vacancies and 90 anticipated vacancies. The age limit for eligibility was 18-32 years, with relaxation of 3 years for MBC/OBC/EBC/BCM/BT candidates and 5 years for SC candidates. The Respondents contended that while candidates aged 18-32 could be considered under the unreserved category even if from reserved categories, reserved category candidates could be 6 OA/310/01116/2016 considered under their respective categories up to 35 years for OBC and 37 years for SC. The cut-off for OBC was 143.300, which the Applicant did not meet, and although her marks exceeded the unreserved category cut-off, she could not be considered due to exceeding the age limit. Respondents 3 to 7, despite lower marks, were under 32 and thus selected.
7. The learned counsel relied on the judgment in the case of Deepa E.V. vs. Union of India & Others, (2017) 12 SCC 680, argued that the recruitment was merit-based and the Applicant's claim is baseless, and prayed for dismissal of the OA.
8. Per contra, the learned counsel for the official respondents vehemently opposed the submissions of the Applicant and relied upon the reply statement. He submitted that the 2nd Respondent invited applications from Indian citizens residing in UT Puducherry for filling 180 existing vacancies and 90 anticipated vacancies for the post of Construction Helper (Work Charged), vide Notification, dated 03.06.2015. The age limit for eligibility was fixed between 18 and 32 years, with relaxation of three years for MBC/OBC/EBC/BCM/BT candidates and five years for SC candidates, in accordance with existing rules.
7 OA/310/01116/2016
9. He further submitted that, as per the Notification, dated 03.06.2015, any candidate aged between 18 and 32 years could be considered under the unreserved category, even if belonging to a reserved category. Likewise, candidates belonging to reserved categories could be considered under their respective categories up to the age of 35 years in the case of OBC candidates and 37 years in the case of SC candidates. The cut-off marks for the OBC category was 143.300, whereas the Applicant secured only 137.771 marks and, therefore, was not selected under the OBC category.
10. He further submitted that although the cut-off for the unreserved category was 136.700 and the Applicant's marks exceeded this threshold, she could not be considered under the unreserved category as she had crossed the maximum age of 32 years. Respondents 3 to 7, despite securing fewer marks than the Applicant, were below 32 years of age and were therefore considered under the unreserved category. He finally submitted that the recruitment process was conducted strictly on merit, that the Applicant's claim was without substance, and relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Deepa E.V. vs. Union of India & Others, reported in (2017) 12 SCC 680. Hence, he prayed for dismissal of the OA.
8 OA/310/01116/2016
11. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the pleadings and the materials placed on record. We have also carefully gone through the case laws referred to by them.
12. When the OA came up for admission, this Tribunal directed the applicant to take private notice on the private respondents (R3 to R7). However, over the past ten years, the applicant has neither taken such notice nor filed any proof of service on the private respondents R3 to R7.
13. In the present OA, the issue that arises for our consideration is:
"Whether a candidate who applied as a reserved-category candidate, but scored higher than other candidates, can seek appointment under the unreserved category after having availed age relaxation for participating in the recruitment process, and whether such a candidate is eligible for appointment."
14. We first address the decision relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant in State of Tamil Nadu & Others v. K. Shobana & Others. In that case, the grievance of the respondents was that meritorious candidates belonging to the MBC quota, who would have been selected irrespective of reservation, were not considered against general vacancies. Instead, 9 OA/310/01116/2016 they were appointed under the MBC/DNC quota against backlog vacancies. As a consequence, other eligible candidates were denied appointment. They have contended that meritorious candidates ought first to have been adjusted against general category vacancies on the basis of merit. Thereafter, the backlog vacancies should have been filled, and only subsequently should the current vacancies under the respective quota have been adjusted. Aggrieved by the provisional selection list, they filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras seeking its quashing and a direction for their appointment. The Hon'ble High Court allowed the writ petition. Challenging the said decision, the State of Tamil Nadu preferred a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow:
"24. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the courts below as there really could not have been any cavil to the aforesaid. The principle that such of the reservation category candidates who make it on their own merit have to be adjusted against the general category candidates has not been in doubt or argued in view of the catena of judgments cited aforesaid. In our view, Section 27(f)of the Act cannot be read in a manner, apart from any other reason, to negate this very principle.
25. It has been rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that the issue arising from seniority of filling the backlog vacancies first was not even urged in the courts below and was sought to be raised for the first time before this Court, and elaborately at that, which plea finally fizzled out, as it was conceded that there is no factual basis for the same.
10 OA/310/01116/2016
26. There can be no doubt about the proposition that if a word is used in a Statue, it cannot be made otiose as held inHardeep Singh(supra). However, that is not the factual scenario in this case. The question arises as to at which stage would Section 27 of the Act operates, and where in the list, the application of the "first" principle would apply. Section 27deals with the reservation. It has nothing to do with the general candidates list/ General Turn vacancies. Such of the candidates who have made it on their own merit albeit, from reserved category, have not sought the benefit of the reservation. Thus,Section 27of the Act would have nothing to do up to that point.Section 27would apply only when the reservation principle begins, which is after filling up of the seats on merit. Thus, the word "first" would apply at that stage, i.e., the backlog vacancies have to be filled in first and the current vacancies to be filled in thereafter. At the stage when the general category seats are being filled, there is thus no question of any carry forward or current vacancies for reserved category arising at all.
xxxxx
28. It appears that such a situation may not arise in the future as all backlog vacancies are stated to have been filled in. The performance and merit of candidates, as apparent from the list in question, would itself show as to how many candidates have been successful to attain appointment on a merit position without even availing of reservation- an extremely encouraging aspect! The increase in MBC/DNC candidates really does not impinge on the reservation of seats for other categories, nor does it violate any provision of the Constitution of India. 10 Though, of course, it would imply that some of the other candidates from different reserved categories would not be entitled to fill in the reserved seats of MBC/DNC categories, if those seats would have remained vacant.
15. On careful reading of the said judgment, it is seen The court upheld the principle that candidates from reserved categories who qualify on their own merit are treated as general category candidates, and their 11 OA/310/01116/2016 appointments are adjusted against general vacancies without availing the benefits of reservation. Section 27(f) of the Act, which deals with the reservation of seats, applies only after merit-based appointments have been finalized and governs the allocation of reserved seats, including backlog vacancies. The contention regarding the seniority of filling backlog vacancies first was not raised in the lower courts and lacked any factual foundation; therefore, it was rejected. The judgment clarified that the increase in appointments of MBC/DNC candidates based on merit does not infringe upon the rights of other reserved categories or violate any constitutional provisions, as all backlog vacancies have already been filled. Ultimately, the Apex Court reaffirmed that merit-based achievement by reserved-category candidates is recognized while maintaining the integrity of the reservation system.
16. In view of the above, We are of the view that the said judgment is not at all helpful to the applicant since the controversy in the said case is in relation to interpretation of section 27(f) of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants (Conditions of Service) Act 2016, which is not at all relevant and applicable to the present case.
12 OA/310/01116/2016 17, Coming to the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents in the case of Deepa. EV Vs. Union of India, wherein the Apex held that a candidate who has applied under OBC category by availing age relaxation and also attending the recruitment process under OBC category cannot claim right to be appointed under the General category. The crux of the judgment are put it in a nutshell below:
" Learned counsel for the appellant mainly relied upon the judgment of this Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh and Another v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others,State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2010) 3 SCC 119, which interpreted the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994 and the Government Order dated 25.03.1994. On perusal, it is evident that the said Act did not expressly bar SC/ST/OBC candidates from being considered against General Category posts. In that context, this Court held that relaxations granted to reserved category candidates ensured a level playing field. However, in view of the express bar contained in the proceedings dated 01.07.1998, the principle laid down in Jitendra Kumar Singh cannot be applied to the present case.
Learned senior counsel for the respondents referred to paragraphs 65 and 72 of Jitendra Kumar Singh to contend that the principles therein were confined to the interpretation of the 1994 Act and the specific factual matrix of that case. Paragraphs 65 and 72 clarify that the issue was limited to whether an OBC candidate, having applied under the reserved category, could be considered for an unreserved vacancy upon securing higher merit than the last general category candidate. The Government
13 OA/310/01116/2016 Instructions dated 25.03.1994 expressly provided that a reserved category candidate selected on merit in open competition would be adjusted against unreserved vacancies, irrespective of relaxations availed. The Court observed that age and fee relaxations merely enabled competition and did not dilute merit standards. Consequently, such relaxations could not deprive a reserved category candidate of consideration under the General Category on merit.
In light of the above observations, the principles in Jitendra Kumar Singh are inapplicable here. As rightly held by the High Court, that decision turned on the statutory scheme under the U.P. Act, 1994 and the Government Order dated 25.03.1994, which is materially different from the present framework. Notably, the appellant did not challenge the constitutional validity of the proceedings dated 01.07.1998 read with Rule 9 of the Export Inspection Agency (Recruitment) Rules, 1980. The writ petition merely sought a declaration that Exhibit P5 (proceedings dated 01.07.1998) was not binding. No constitutional challenge was raised before the learned Single Judge or the Division Bench.
Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed.'
18. Out attention was drawn to the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Others Vs Sajib Roy, in Civil Appeal No.___/2025, (@SLP (C) Nos.21392-21393/2019) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court considered the similar issue raised by the applicant herein. It is appropriate for us to extract the relevant portion of the judgment dated 09.09.2025 below:
14 OA/310/01116/2016 "2. Appellants have assailed common impugned judgment and order dated 12.10.20181 and order dated 26.02.20192 whereby the respondents-writ petitioners who had applied as reserved candidates in OBC category after having availed age relaxation for the post of Constable (GD) were directed to be considered for recruitment under unreserved category.
Xxxxx xxxx xxxxxx
5. Relying on Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr v. State of UP & Ors reported in (2010) 3 SCC 119 6, the High Court held that the refusal to permit respondents-writ petitioners to migrate to the unreserved category though they scored higher than the last candidate in such category runs counter to the principles of merit-based recruitment in public services and would be opposed to the principles of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. The High Court further held that relaxations in fee and age for reserved candidates to participate in the selection process are concessions in aid of reservation and do not impair the 'level-playing field' in the open competition, i.e., written examination where such candidates have scored more than those selected under the unreserved category.
Xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx
32. On an analysis of the aforecited cases, we summarize as follows:
Whether a reserved candidate who has availed relaxation in fees/upper age limit to participate in open competition with general candidates may be recruited against unreserved seats would depend on the facts of each case. That is to say, in the event there is no embargo in the recruitment rules/employment notification, such reserved candidates who have scored higher than the last selected unreserved candidate shall be entitled to migrate and be recruited against unreserved seats. However, if an embargo is imposed under relevant recruitment rules, such reserved candidates shall not be permitted to migrate to general category seats.
15 OA/310/01116/2016
33. Accordingly, we hold as the respondents-writ petitioners had availed concession of age for participating in the recruitment process, in the teeth of office memorandum dated 01.07.1998, the High Court was wrong in applying the ratio in Jitendra Kumar (supra) and permitting them to be considered for appointment in the unreserved category. Consequently, we set aside the common impugned judgment and order dated 12.10.2018 and order dated 26.02.2019 and allow the appeals. Pending application(s) if any, stand disposed of.
19. Applying the aforesaid recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court and on careful consideration of the rival submissions, we have to answer that a reserved candidate who applied under reserved category and scored higher marks than other candidates (Unreserved category) cannot seek appointment under UR category by availing age relaxation. In view of the same, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order 29.06.2016 passed by the respondents in the case of the applicant.
20. In the result the OA is dismissed as devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(M.L. SRIVASTAVA) (M.SWAMINATHAN)
MEMBER(A) MEMBER(J)
26.02.2026
mas
Digitally signed
MA by M A SUNDAR
SUNDAR Date: 2026.03.20
11:43:44 +05'30'