In a significant verdict reinforcing the principle of merit in public employment, the Supreme Court has ruled that candidates belonging to reserved categories who secure marks higher than the cut-off prescribed for the General/Open category in a screening test must be treated as Open category candidates for the subsequent stages of selection.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih dismissed the appeals filed by the Rajasthan High Court administration, upholding the High Court’s judicial order that directed the inclusion of meritorious reserved category candidates in the General list for the recruitment of Junior Judicial Assistants and Clerks.
The controversy arose from a recruitment process initiated by the Rajasthan High Court in 2022 for 2,756 vacancies. The selection involved two stages: a written test and a computer-based typewriting test.
When the results of the written test were declared on May 1, 2023, the cut-off marks for several reserved categories (SC, OBC-NCL, EWS, etc.) were found to be significantly higher than the cut-off for the General category (196.3451). Consequently, many reserved category candidates who had scored more than the General cut-off but less than their own category’s cut-off were excluded from the list of candidates qualified for the typewriting test.
Aggrieved candidates approached the High Court, which ruled in their favor. The administrative side of the High Court then challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, arguing that “migration” of reserved candidates to the General category should only occur at the final merit list stage, not at the screening stage.
Background and Facts
The Rajasthan High Court issued an advertisement on August 5, 2022, for recruitment to the posts of Junior Judicial Assistant/Clerk Grade-II. The scheme envisaged a written test of 300 marks and a typewriting test of 100 marks. Candidates were to be shortlisted for the typewriting test to the extent of five times the number of vacancies.
The results revealed a peculiar anomaly where the cut-off marks were as follows:
- General: 196.3451
- Scheduled Caste: 202.4398
- OBC-NCL: 230.4431
- EWS: 224.5384
The respondents—candidates from reserved categories—had secured marks higher than the General cut-off (196.3451) but failed to meet the higher cut-offs set for their respective categories. They were thus denied the opportunity to appear for the typewriting test, while candidates with lower scores in the General category were qualified.
Arguments of the Parties
The Appellants (Rajasthan High Court Administration) Represented by senior counsel, the administration argued that the rule of “migration”—where a meritorious reserved candidate moves to the General category—applies only at the stage of final selection/appointment, not during the preliminary shortlisting. They contended that applying this rule at the screening stage would amount to conferring a “double benefit” on reserved candidates. Reliance was placed on the judgment in Chattar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1996) to argue that migration is impermissible at the screening stage.
The Respondents (Aggrieved Candidates) The candidates contended that the General/Open category is not a reservation for non-reserved candidates but a pool open to all based on merit. Excluding them despite higher marks violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. They argued that denying them a place in the General list at the screening stage effectively treated the Open category as a quota for General candidates, thereby penalizing merit.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Supreme Court rejected the appellants’ contentions, emphasizing that the “Open” category is accessible to all candidates solely on the basis of merit.
On the Nature of “Open” Category Justice Dipankar Datta, writing for the Bench, observed:
“The word ‘open’ connotes nothing but ‘open’, meaning thereby that vacant posts which are sought to be filled by earmarking it as ‘open’ do not fall in any category… For all intents and purposes, the vacancies on posts which are notified/advertised as open or unreserved or general, as the terms suggest, are not reserved for any caste/tribe/class/gender and are, thus, open to all.”
Rejection of “Double Benefit” Theory The Court dismissed the argument that allowing meritorious reserved candidates to compete as General candidates at the screening stage confers a double benefit. The Court stated:
“The premise underlying the argument of potentially conferring ‘double benefit’ to the candidates of the reserved category proceeds on an erroneous assumption… In such a situation, the reserved candidate does not draw upon the benefit of reservation at any stage and is entitled to be considered and appointed against an unreserved vacant post purely on merit.”
Distinction from Chattar Singh The Bench distinguished the present case from Chattar Singh. In Chattar Singh, the preliminary exam marks were not counted for the final merit. In the present case, the written test constituted 75% of the final assessment (300 out of 400 marks). Therefore, the Court held that merit determined at this stage could not be ignored.
Merit-Based Adjustment vs. Migration The Court clarified that when a reserved category candidate outscores General candidates without availing concessions, their inclusion in the General list is a matter of merit, not “migration.”
“If any candidate, say ‘C’, being the member of a Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Class, outscores the candidates not belonging to any reserved category in the written test, he/she shall be included in the short-list for the General/Open category. At this stage, there is no question of any migration; merit is the only criterion.”
Caveat on Preferred Posts The Court also added a crucial caveat regarding service allocation. If a meritorious reserved candidate qualifies as a General candidate but fails to get a preferred post available in their reserved quota, they must be allowed to revert to their reserved category to claim that post. This ensures that “reservation functions as a means of inclusion rather than an instrument of disadvantage.”
Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Rajasthan High Court administration and upheld the impugned order of the Division Bench.
The Court affirmed the High Court’s direction to:
- Prepare the General/Open category list strictly on merit, including reserved category candidates who secured higher marks than the General cut-off (without availing special concessions).
- Thereafter, prepare the reserved category lists.
- Allow the excluded meritorious candidates to appear for the typewriting test.
The Court extended the time for compliance by two months and advised that, as far as possible, employees already in position should not be dislodged.
Case Details
Case Name: Rajasthan High Court & Anr. vs. Rajat Yadav & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal No. 14112 of 2024 (with connected matters)
Coram: Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih
