Summary of Supreme निर्णय SC/ ST/OBC को बड़ा झटका General Merit से हुए Out | Tansukh Paliwal | Linking Laws

Summary

The video by Tansukh Paliwal discusses a significant Supreme Court judgment dated 9th September 2025 concerning reservation policies and merit-based selection for SC/ST/OBC candidates in India. The judgment addresses the controversy over whether candidates from reserved categories who score higher marks than general category candidates can claim unreserved/general seats.

Key Points:

• Background of Reservation and Merit Conflict:
  There has been ongoing debate about whether SC/ST/OBC candidates scoring above general category candidates can be selected on general merit seats. Some argue merit should prevail regardless of category, while others say reservation rules must be strictly followed.
• Historical Context:
  The issue traces back to government orders from Uttar Pradesh in 1994 and a central government order from 1998.
  • The 1994 UP government order allowed reserved category candidates to be considered for general seats if they scored higher than general category candidates.
  • The 1998 Central Government order, however, explicitly states that candidates benefiting from reservation relaxations (age, experience, etc.) should not be considered for unreserved vacancies.
• Legal Journey:
  The dispute began in 2017 with a writ petition, followed by a review petition and finally reaching the Supreme Court in 2025.
  The case discussed is Union of India vs. Sajeeb Roy, involving vacancies (about 62,000) conducted by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) under DoPT rules.
• Core Issue:
  The candidate from OBC category scored higher than the general category cutoff but was not selected for the general seat because the cutoff for OBC was higher. The candidate challenged this, demanding allocation of seats in the general category based on merit.
• Supreme Court’s Decision:
  • The Supreme Court ruled that the local UP law and its interpretation (e.g., the 2010 Jitendra Kumar case) cannot be applied to central government vacancies.
  • Recruitment and selection must follow the specific recruitment rules and government orders applicable to the vacancy.
  • If the recruitment advertisement explicitly allows "migration" or switching from reserved to general seats based on merit, then it is valid; otherwise, it is not permitted.
  • The 1998 Central Government order prohibits candidates who avail reservation relaxations from being considered against unreserved vacancies, and this order forms the basis of the Supreme Court’s decision.
• Implications:
  The judgment clarifies that merit-based migration from reserved to general seats depends entirely on the recruitment rules and government orders governing the vacancy. This means that despite scoring higher, reserved category candidates may not claim general seats if the rules do not allow it.
  To challenge this, one would need to contest the government orders themselves, not the Supreme Court judgment.
• Additional Information:
  Tansukh Paliwal has prepared a detailed table summarizing all Supreme Court judgments related to reservation, available on the Linking Law website and Twitter channel. He also announced a new segment starting on 18th September for judiciary and advocacy exam preparation.

Presenters/Contributors:

• Tansukh Paliwal

Category

News and Commentary

Video