CASE NAME: AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA & ORS VERSUS SHAM KRISHNA B & ORS.
CASE NUMBER: SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 & Anr.
COURT: The Supreme Court of India
DATE: January 16, 2026.
QUORUM: Justice M. M. Sundresh, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
FACTS
In 2013, the Airport Authority of India (AAI) started a recruitment drive for 245 Junior Assistant (Fire Service) posts, which included 122 Unreserved (UR), 78 OBC, 22 SC, and 23 ST vacancies. Approximately 13,000 candidates applied for the posts. The recruitment procedure included several steps: a written test, driving test, physical endurance test, and an interview. After the entire recruitment procedure, only 158 candidates were selected.
The respondent, Sham Krishna B, was from the unreserved category. He successfully completed all levels of the selection process and obtained an aggregate of 128.08 marks, securing merit rank 132. However, since there were only 122 unreserved vacancies, he could not be selected. Dissatisfied with the selection process, he filed a writ petition before the Kerala High Court, claiming that the AAI had wrongly adjusted meritorious candidates from the reserved category against unreserved vacancies.
The High Court accepted his argument and ordered AAI to appoint him. AAI challenged this order in the Supreme Court.
ISSUES
- Whether reserved category candidates who qualify on the basis of their own merit, without availing any relaxation, should be adjusted against unreserved posts.
- Whether the reservation roster is operating as a selection procedure or as an administrative procedure.
- Whether unreserved vacancies need to be filled only by candidates of the unreserved category.
- Whether the writ petition was liable to be dismissed on grounds of delay and laches.
LEGAL PROVISIONS
Constitutional Provisions
- Article 14: Equality before law.
- Article 16: Equality of opportunity with respect to employment in the public service, including the principle of affirmative action
- Article 335: Reservation for SC/ST is subject to the maintenance of administrative efficiency.
Administrative Guidelines
- DoPT Office Memorandum dated 02.07.1997: Paragraph 11 states that the selected candidates from the reserved category on the basis of merit should be adjusted against the unreserved posts.
- DoPT Office Memorandum dated 23.01.2014: It is clarified that the reservation roster/register is an administrative device for vacancy management and cadre monitoring.
Procedural Law
- Right to Information Act, 2005, invoked by the respondent to get selection details.
ARGUMENTS OF THE PETITIONER
The petitioner, Sham Krishna B, argued that AAI has wrongly applied the reservation policy by moving deserving candidates from the reserved category to the unreserved category, thereby denying opportunities to deserving candidates from the general category. The petitioner argued that the 122 posts in the unreserved category should have been filled only by candidates from the unreserved category.
He further submitted that several reserved vacancies were not filled, making such migration unnecessary and arbitrary. He further submitted that the model roster was applied incorrectly, leading to a violation of the DoPT guidelines.
Regarding the issue of delay, the petitioner submitted that AAI has not published the select list and mark details. The petitioner submitted that his challenge is in time since he approached the court only after acquiring relevant information through RTI applications.
ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent (AAI) asserted that the selection process was strictly in accordance with constitutional provisions and DoPT guidelines. It was also stated that unreserved vacancies are open to all candidates, irrespective of category, as long as they are qualified on merit without the benefit of relaxation.
AAI stressed that the reservation list is not a selection instrument but only an administrative device for tracking vacancies. It argued that since all 122 unreserved vacancies were already filled by persons scoring higher than the petitioner, no legal right to appointment survived.
AAI also contended that the writ petition was beset with delay and laches, since the recruitment process was already over when the challenge was made.
ANALYSIS
The Supreme Court reiterated the established position that the unreserved category is a merit-based pool which is open to all candidates, irrespective of their caste/category. The Court held that if a candidate belonging to the reserved category is selected on the basis of “own merit” without availing relaxation in respect of age and marks, then such selection would not be within the reservation policy and would have to be set or adjusted against the unreserved category. This is called “merit-induced migration.”
To sustain this argument, the Court relied on the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, where it was held that the reserved category of candidates appointed on merit in the general category should not be taken into account against the reserved quotas.
The Court also relied on the decision of Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P., (2021) 4 SCC 542, which held that the open category is “open to all” and cannot be reserved as a closed quota for unreserved candidates alone. The decision further emphasized that reservation is only when relaxations are availed.
Finally, based on the case of Rajasthan High Court v. Rajat Yadav, Civil Appeal No. 14112 of 2024, the Court held that after more meritorious candidates fill the unreserved vacancies, the courts cannot reorder the merit list to accommodate lower-ranked candidates.
The Court also held that the reservation roster is only administrative in nature, intended for cadre management and future identification of vacancies, and not a parallel selection process.
JUDGEMENT
The Supreme Court allowed AAI’s appeal and set aside the directions given by the High Court. The court held that the process of selection was legal and constitutional. All 122 unreserved seats were occupied by candidates who had scored higher marks than the respondent, and therefore, his exclusion was justified.
CONCLUSION
The verdict highlights the fact that merit is at the forefront in the framework of the constitutional scheme of reservations. The court has clearly demarcated the difference between reservations, which are enabling in their approach, and merit which is the governing principle of open competition. Through the determination of the functionality of the reservations list, the court has maintained the checks of merit in the reservations.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
WRITTEN BY: USIKA K
