New Delhi : The Supreme Court of India has delivered a significant ruling on public recruitment, holding that reserved category candidates who score higher than the general category cut-off at the preliminary or screening stage must be treated as open category candidates from that very stage. The Court made it clear that when merit alone determines placement, there is no question of any “migration” from reserved to general category at a later point.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed appeals filed by the Rajasthan High Court administration, which had challenged a judgment directing inclusion of meritorious reserved category candidates in the general merit list for shortlisting to the typewriting test.
The dispute arose from a recruitment process for 2,756 posts of Junior Judicial Assistant and Clerk Grade-II. Selection was based on a written examination carrying 300 marks, followed by a computer typewriting test of 100 marks. Several candidates belonging to reserved categories such as SC, ST, OBC, MBC and EWS scored above the general category cut-off of 196.3451 in the written test. However, they failed to meet the much higher cut-offs fixed for their respective categories, which went up to 230.4431 for OBC-NCL.
Despite outperforming many general category candidates in absolute terms, these reserved category candidates were restricted to competing only within their own categories and were excluded from the typewriting test. At the same time, general category candidates with lower scores were shortlisted, triggering legal challenges.
The Rajasthan High Court’s Division Bench found this approach constitutionally flawed. It held that authorities must first prepare a common open merit list of all candidates who cross the general cut-off, irrespective of category, provided they have not availed any special concessions. Only thereafter should category-wise lists be drawn up. This reasoning was upheld by the Supreme Court.
Rejecting the administration’s argument that migration to the general category could occur only at the final selection stage, the Court explained that in this recruitment, the written examination was not a mere screening test. It accounted for 75 percent of the total marks and was a substantive assessment of merit. Therefore, exclusion of meritorious candidates at this stage was unjustified.
On the issue of estoppel, the Court held that candidates could not be prevented from challenging an illegality that was not evident from the recruitment advertisement. While the advertisement mentioned preparation of category-wise lists, it did not indicate that reserved category candidates scoring above the general cut-off would still be denied treatment as general candidates. Since this illegality surfaced only after results were declared, estoppel did not apply.
The Bench also firmly rejected the claim that allowing such candidates into the open list would give them a “double benefit.” A reserved category candidate who competes purely on merit without availing any concession does not draw on reservation benefits at all. Such a candidate is entitled to consideration against unreserved posts solely on the basis of performance.
Clarifying the law, the Court stressed that open or unreserved category posts are open to all candidates, regardless of caste or class, with merit as the only criterion. They are not exclusive compartments meant only for candidates outside reserved categories.
The Court distinguished earlier rulings, including Chattar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, where migration was held to occur only at the final stage. In that case, preliminary exam marks did not count towards final merit. Here, the written test formed a substantial part of the evaluation, making the situations materially different.
Most importantly, the Court stated that inclusion of a reserved category candidate in the open merit list on the basis of marks alone cannot be described as migration at all. There is no shift involved when such a candidate simply outperforms others on merit.
The correct method, the Court said, is to first rank all candidates in descending order of merit after the written exam. For the open category shortlist, merit alone governs selection. If a reserved category candidate features within this list, they must be treated as a general candidate from that stage onwards. This treatment continues through subsequent stages unless their merit position later falls outside the general zone but remains within the reserved category range.
To address possible anomalies, the Court added a caveat. If a meritorious reserved category candidate, by being counted in the general category, risks losing a preferred post or service that remains available within the reserved quota, fairness demands that the candidate be allowed to opt for consideration under the reserved category.
The Bench clarified that precedents relied upon by the administration, such as Vikas Sankhala, Gaurav Pradhan and Nirav Kumar Dilipbhai Makwana, involved candidates who had availed concessions like age relaxation or reduced qualifying marks. Since no such concessions were taken in the present case, those rulings did not apply. It also distinguished Deepa E.V. v. Union of India, noting that no recruitment rule here expressly barred adjustment of reserved candidates to unreserved posts.
Reaffirming principles laid down in Indra Sawhney, Jitendra Kumar Singh and Saurav Yadav, the Court held that confining meritorious reserved category candidates to reserved slots purely because of their category violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Appreciating the High Court’s proactive intervention, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, granted two months for compliance, and directed that implementation should, as far as possible, avoid dislodging employees already in service.
Case Title: Rajasthan High Court & Anr. v. Rajat Yadav & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 14112 of 2024
