RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE & ORS. versus PREM CHAND KUMAR & ORS.

RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE & ORS. versus PREM CHAND KUMAR & ORS.

The Court held that (a) in the RPF ancillary recruitment the Revised Directive No.29 made the procedure in Standing Order No.85 applicable to such recruitment and para 14(f) of Standing Order No.85, which bars migration of reserved candidates who availed relaxation in age and/or physical measurements to unreserved vacancies, prevails over para 14(b) of Standing Order No.78; accordingly the High Court order directing selection of such respondents against unreserved posts was set aside; and (b) in the CISF recruitment the Office Memorandum dated 01.07.1998 does not expressly cover relaxed physical standards (height/weight/chest) and therefore does not bar consideration of reserved...

Parties
Appellant: Railway Protection Force & Ors.; Respondent: Prem Chand Kumar & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 September 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Civil Appeal No. 11716 of 2025 allowed; Civil Appeal No. 11717 of 2025 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Reserved Category, Migration of Reserved Candidates, Standing Order No.85, Revised Directive No.29, Office Memorandum Dated 01.07.1998, Physical Standards in Recruitment
Service Law Recruitment Reserved Category Migration of Reserved Candidates Standing Order No.85 Revised Directive No.29 Office Memorandum Dated 01.07.1998 Physical Standards in Recruitment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Railway Protection Force & Ors.

Appellant

Prem Chand Kumar & Ors.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether reserved candidates who availed relaxation in age and/or physical measurements and scored higher than unreserved candidates can be considered against unreserved vacancies
  2. 2 Whether Revised Directive No.29 made Standing Order No.85 applicable to recruitment of ancillary constable posts and thereby displaced Para 14(b) of Standing Order No.78
  3. 3 Whether Office Memorandum dated 01.07.1998 bars consideration of reserved candidates who availed relaxed physical standards (height/weight/chest) for appointment against general category vacancies

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that (a) in the RPF ancillary recruitment the Revised Directive No.29 made the procedure in Standing Order No.85 applicable to such recruitment and para 14(f) of Standing Order No.85, which bars migration of reserved candidates who availed relaxation in age and/or physical measurements to unreserved vacancies, prevails over para 14(b) of Standing Order No.78; accordingly the High Court order directing selection of such respondents against unreserved posts was set aside; and (b) in the CISF recruitment the Office Memorandum dated 01.07.1998 does not expressly cover relaxed physical standards (height/weight/chest) and therefore does not bar consideration of reserved...

Court Disposition

Civil Appeal No. 11716 of 2025 allowed; Civil Appeal No. 11717 of 2025 dismissed.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment and order dated 29.03.2019 of the High Court of Delhi set aside; appeal allowed in Civil Appeal No. 11716 of 2025.
  • Appeal dismissed in Civil Appeal No. 11717 of 2025; judgment and order of the High Court dated 27.08.2019 upheld; pending applications, if any, disposed of.