In a significant ruling on public employment and reservation policy, the Supreme Court has overturned the Kerala High Court’s decision that had directed the Airport Authority of India (AAI) to appoint a candidate to the post of Junior Assistant (Fire Service). The top court held that candidates from reserved categories who secure higher marks on merit are entitled to be counted in the general category, and such appointments cannot be faulted merely on roster grounds.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from a 2013 recruitment notification issued by the Airport Authority of India for 245 posts of Junior Assistant (Fire Service). These included vacancies for unreserved, OBC, SC and ST categories.
After a multi-stage selection process involving a written test, physical tests and interviews, only 158 candidates were appointed. Among them, several candidates from reserved categories had secured marks high enough to be included in the unreserved category list.
Sham Krishna B, one of the applicants, missed selection and later sought information under the Right to Information Act. He alleged that reservation rules were wrongly applied and that reserved category candidates were wrongly adjusted against unreserved posts. He moved the Kerala High Court, which ruled in his favour and directed his appointment.
That order was challenged by the Airport Authority of India before the Supreme Court.
Read also:- Gadag Murder Case: Supreme Court Reverses High Court, Orders Release of Accused
Key Issue Before the Court
The main legal question was whether candidates belonging to reserved categories-who qualify on merit without availing any relaxation-can be counted against unreserved vacancies.
The High Court had taken the view that reservation rules were violated and that the roster system had not been properly followed. The Airport Authority argued otherwise, stating that merit-based selection was lawful and in line with settled principles.
Court’s Observations
A bench of Justices M.M. Sundresh and Satish Chandra Sharma examined the recruitment process in detail and rejected the High Court’s reasoning.
The Court observed that reservation rosters are meant to track representation after appointments, not to interfere with merit-based selection.
“The roster is not a tool for selection but a post-appointment mechanism to ensure representation,” the bench noted.
The judges explained that if a reserved category candidate scores higher than general category candidates without availing any relaxation, such a candidate must be treated as a general category candidate.
Referring to earlier judgments, including Indra Sawhney and Rajasthan High Court v. Rajat Yadav, the Court reiterated:
“Merit remains the governing factor. A candidate who qualifies on merit cannot be pushed back into the reserved category merely because of social classification.”
The Court also clarified that the concept of “migration” of reserved candidates into general category posts is not a legal fiction but a natural outcome of merit-based selection.
Why the High Court Order Was Set Aside
The Supreme Court found multiple errors in the High Court’s approach:
- The High Court wrongly treated the reservation roster as part of the selection process.
- It failed to recognise that unreserved posts are open to all candidates.
- It overlooked settled law that merit-based selection overrides category status.
- It ignored the fact that no relaxation or concession was given to selected candidates.
The Court noted that all 122 unreserved posts had already been filled strictly on merit and that the petitioner did not score enough to displace any selected candidate.
Read also:- Supreme Court Rules Against Service Tax on Speaker Fees, Clears HT Media in Event Management Dispute
Final Decision
Allowing the appeal filed by the Airport Authority of India, the Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court’s judgment and ruled:
- The selection process followed by AAI was lawful.
- Reserved category candidates selected on merit were correctly placed in the unreserved list.
- No appointment could be granted to the petitioner.
- The High Court’s direction to appoint the petitioner was quashed.
The connected appeal filed by another candidate was also dismissed.
“There is no illegality in treating meritorious reserved category candidates as unreserved candidates,” the Court concluded.
Case Title: Airport Authority of India & Ors. v. Sham Krishna B & Ors.
Case No.: SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020
Decision Date: January 16, 2026
