Ex-Servicemen Availing Age Relaxation Cannot Claim UR Posts On Merit: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has held that ex-servicemen who avail age relaxation to participate in a recruitment process cannot claim consideration against unreserved vacancies on the basis of higher merit, ruling that a candidate who relies on a category-specific concession to cross the eligibility threshold cannot simultaneously seek to be treated as an unreserved candidate for the purpose of shortlisting or selection.

Justice Sanjeev Narula dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by ex-servicemen challenging their non-inclusion in the list of candidates called for document verification for recruitment to the posts of Non-Executive cadres in the Northern Region of the Airports Authority of India.

The petitioners had contended that despite securing marks higher than the last shortlisted candidate in the unreserved segment, they were not called for document verification and that such exclusion amounted to arbitrariness and merit being ignored.

The recruitment in question provided for horizontal reservation for the category of ex-servicemen.

The petitioners argued that unreserved vacancies are open to all candidates and must be filled purely on merit irrespective of category. Drawing attention to the document verification list, they pointed out that candidates under the ex-servicemen category were called in descending order of marks ranging from 81 to 66, whereas the cut-off for the unreserved category was 59.

According to them, their scores were sufficiently high to secure a place in the unreserved pool and they were entitled to migrate to that category for the purpose of shortlisting.

The Airports Authority of India resisted the plea on the ground that the petitioners were over the upper-age limit prescribed for unreserved candidates and were able to participate in the recruitment process only by availing age relaxation available to ex-servicemen.

Reliance was placed on the policy framework reflected in the Department of Personnel and Training instructions, which recognise reservation for ex-servicemen as horizontal in nature but stipulate that an ex-serviceman belonging to the unreserved category can be considered for an unreserved post only if he satisfies all eligibility conditions, including the age criterion, without availing any relaxation.

It was submitted that once age relaxation is taken, the candidate’s consideration is confined to the ex-servicemen quota.

The Court examined the doctrinal distinction in reservation jurisprudence between vertical reservations based on social categories and horizontal reservations meant for special classes.

Referring to the settled legal position, it observed that horizontal reservation operates as an interlocking mechanism that cuts across vertical categories and is implemented by adjusting candidates within their respective vertical categories after the preparation of the merit list.

The central issue before the Court was whether candidates who had admittedly availed age relaxation as ex-servicemen to become eligible for the recruitment process could nonetheless claim consideration against unreserved vacancies on the strength of their marks.

Answering the question in the negative, the Court held that the petitioners were effectively seeking a dual benefit; first, eligibility to enter the zone of consideration by using a relaxation that was not available to unreserved candidates, and second, treatment as unreserved candidates for the purpose of shortlisting and selection.

The Court held that once the factual position that the petitioners had crossed the age limit for the unreserved category stood admitted, the legal consequence followed.

A candidate who enters the field of competition by availing a category-linked concession cannot insist on being treated at par with unreserved candidates who meet the eligibility criteria without such relaxation. Permitting such a claim would result in unequals being treated equally and would disturb the intended distribution of vacancies.

Rejecting the reliance placed by the petitioners on the law governing migration in cases of horizontal reservation, the Court clarified that the distinction drawn in the Supreme Court’s decision in Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission pertains to the stage of adjustment and counting after the selection list is prepared and does not require the appointing authority to treat a candidate as unreserved if the candidate had entered the competition by availing a concession not available to unreserved candidates.

The Court further explained that the principle that horizontal reservation cuts across vertical categories presupposes that all candidates being compared in the unreserved pool are similarly situated in terms of eligibility.

Where a candidate’s very participation in the recruitment process is made possible only by a relaxation that is not available to unreserved candidates, the playing field ceases to be level.

In such a situation, allowing the candidate to be counted against unreserved vacancies would defeat the policy objective of providing a limited rehabilitative quota for ex-servicemen and would alter the distribution of posts.

Holding that the petitioners could not claim migration to the unreserved category after availing age relaxation, the Court found no arbitrariness in their non-inclusion in the list of candidates called for document verification and dismissed the writ petitions.

Case Title: Gaurav Verma & Ors. v. Airports Authority of India & Anr.

Bench: Justice Sanjeev Narula

Date of Judgment: 17.02.2026