Distinction between statutory embargos and permissive migration state rules

Judicial precedents permitting reserved category candidates who availed age or fee relaxations to migrate to general category vacancies are distinguishable when decided under specific statutory rules or executive instructions that explicitly permit such migration. In contrast, where recruitment rules contain an express prohibition or statutory embargo against adjusting relaxed candidates against unreserved seats, no migration can be legally sustained. The presence or absence of an explicit bar in the governing statutory rules is the decisive legal factor in determining whether migration to general vacancies is permissible. Courts must enforce statutory restrictions where the recruitment regime expressly forbids migration after relaxation. (Union of India v. G. Kiran & Ors. | 2026 INSC 15)