Introduction:
In a significant judgment impacting public employment and reservation jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of India on March 23 delivered a progressive ruling concerning the rights of reserved category candidates in recruitment processes. The case arose from a dispute involving teacher recruitment in the State of Maharashtra, where candidates belonging to reserved categories, despite securing higher merit in the final selection stage, were denied inclusion in the general (open) category list solely because they had availed relaxation in the qualifying examination.
The appellants, including Chaya and other similarly placed candidates, had participated in a recruitment process governed by the Right to Education framework. The selection process required candidates to first clear the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET), followed by the Teachers Aptitude and Intelligence Test (TAIT), which ultimately determined inter se merit. While general category candidates were required to secure a minimum of 60% marks in TET, candidates from reserved categories were granted a relaxation of 5%, enabling them to qualify with 55%.
Despite availing this relaxation at the eligibility stage, the appellants performed exceptionally well in the TAIT examination and secured marks significantly higher than the last selected candidate in the general category. However, the recruitment authorities denied them the benefit of migration to the open category, leading to the filing of writ petitions before the Bombay High Court, Aurangabad Bench. The High Court dismissed their claims, holding that candidates who availed relaxation could not be considered for general category posts.
Aggrieved by this decision, the appellants approached the Supreme Court. A bench comprising Justice P. S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe examined the legal issue in depth, particularly focusing on whether availing relaxation in a qualifying examination disentitles a candidate from being considered in the general category based on merit.
Arguments by the Appellants (Reserved Category Candidates):
The appellants strongly challenged the decision of the High Court, arguing that the denial of migration to the general category was arbitrary, unjust, and contrary to established legal principles governing public employment.
At the outset, it was contended that the relaxation granted to reserved category candidates in the TET examination was merely an enabling provision to bring them within the zone of consideration. It did not dilute or affect the merit-based selection process, which was ultimately determined by performance in the TAIT examination. The appellants emphasized that once they had successfully qualified the TET, their relative merit in the final selection process should be the sole determining factor for appointment.
The appellants further argued that the recruitment rules framed by the State Government through the Government Resolution dated February 13, 2013 did not contain any express prohibition against migration of reserved category candidates to the open category. In the absence of such a prohibition, it was impermissible for the authorities to deny them consideration under the general category, especially when they had secured higher marks than candidates already selected under that category.
Another key submission was that the concept of reservation is intended to ensure equality of opportunity and not to penalize meritorious candidates belonging to reserved categories. Denying migration to the general category would result in a paradoxical situation where more meritorious candidates are excluded while less meritorious candidates are selected, thereby undermining the principle of meritocracy.
The appellants also relied on various judicial precedents to support their case. They argued that the law is well-settled that reserved category candidates who secure higher marks than general category candidates are entitled to be considered for general category seats, provided they meet the eligibility criteria. The relaxation in qualifying marks, according to them, does not amount to a relaxation in merit and should not be treated as a disqualification.
Furthermore, the appellants distinguished their case from earlier judgments where migration was denied. They argued that in those cases, the recruitment rules explicitly prohibited such migration or the candidates had failed to meet essential eligibility criteria. In contrast, in the present case, the appellants had fulfilled all eligibility requirements under the relaxed standards lawfully provided to them and had subsequently demonstrated superior merit.
Lastly, the appellants submitted that the denial of their rightful place in the general category violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as it amounted to arbitrary and discriminatory treatment.
Arguments by the Respondents (State Authorities):
The respondents, representing the State of Maharashtra and recruitment authorities, defended the High Court’s judgment and justified the denial of migration to the general category.
The primary argument advanced by the respondents was that the appellants had availed relaxation in the qualifying examination, which placed them at a different footing from general category candidates. According to the respondents, the relaxation in TET marks constituted a lowering of standards, and therefore, candidates who benefited from such relaxation should not be allowed to compete for general category posts.
The respondents contended that allowing such migration would compromise the integrity of the selection process and blur the distinction between general and reserved categories. They argued that general category candidates are required to meet higher eligibility thresholds, and permitting candidates who qualified with relaxed standards to occupy general category seats would be unfair.
Reliance was placed on the judgment in Pradeep Kumar v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2019), where the Supreme Court had held that candidates who do not meet essential eligibility criteria cannot be considered for general category posts. The respondents argued that the appellants’ case fell within this principle, as they had qualified TET with lower marks than required for general category candidates.
Additionally, the respondents argued that the recruitment framework should be interpreted in a manner that preserves the distinct identity and purpose of reservation policies. They contended that allowing migration in such cases would lead to administrative complications and potential misuse of relaxation provisions.
The State further maintained that the High Court had correctly interpreted the law and that its judgment did not warrant interference by the Supreme Court.
Court’s Judgment:
The Supreme Court, after a thorough examination of the facts, statutory framework, and judicial precedents, allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court. The Court delivered a well-reasoned judgment that clarified the legal position on the interplay between relaxation in qualifying examinations and merit-based selection.
At the core of the Court’s reasoning was the distinction between eligibility and merit. The bench observed that relaxation in a qualifying examination merely enables a candidate to enter the zone of consideration. It does not affect the merit of the candidate, which is determined at the final stage of selection based on performance in competitive examinations such as TAIT.
The Court categorically held that in the absence of an express prohibition in the recruitment rules or notification, reserved category candidates who have availed relaxation in qualifying examinations can be considered for general category posts if they secure higher merit.
The Court emphasized that the Recruitment Rules in the present case did not prohibit such migration. Therefore, denying the appellants the opportunity to be considered in the general category was unjustified and contrary to law.
In its judgment, the Court also referred to its earlier decisions in Union of India v. Sajib Roy (2025) and Union of India v. G. Kiran (2026), where migration was denied due to explicit prohibitions in the recruitment rules. By contrasting these cases, the Court highlighted that the permissibility of migration depends entirely on the specific provisions of the applicable rules.
Importantly, the Court distinguished the reliance placed by the respondents on the Pradeep Kumar case. It clarified that the said judgment applies only in situations where candidates fail to meet essential eligibility criteria. In the present case, the appellants had met the eligibility requirements under validly granted relaxation and were therefore entitled to be considered for selection based on merit.
The Court laid down the following key legal principles:
Relaxation in a qualifying examination only facilitates entry into the selection process and does not impact merit.
Merit must be assessed solely on the basis of performance in the final selection stages.
Candidates who do not meet essential eligibility criteria cannot claim general category posts.
Migration of reserved category candidates depends on the recruitment rules or notification.
In the absence of an express prohibition, such migration is permissible.
Applying these principles, the Court held that the appellants, who had secured significantly higher marks than the last selected general category candidate, could not be excluded from the general category. The Court directed the authorities to include such candidates in the merit list.
The judgment reinforces the primacy of merit in public employment while ensuring that reservation policies are implemented in a fair and non-discriminatory manner.