The Rajasthan High Court has reaffirmed that a candidate belonging to a reserved category who meets certain conditions—specifically, secures higher marks than the last-selected general-category candidate, and has not availed any substantive relaxation except possibly fee concession—must be migrated to the general (open) category. This ruling came after a petition by a candidate from the BC-WE category, who had been placed in the reserved category because the seat reserved for her category was already filled. In the reserved-category selection, the cutoff for BC-WE had been 61 marks, while the general-category cutoff was 58, which was lower. The petitioner argued that since her marks exceeded the general-category threshold, she should have been treated as a general-category candidate rather than remain stuck in the reserved-category waitlist.
After reviewing the matter, the Court reiterated the settled principle—established earlier by the Supreme Court—that the general category is essentially an open competition category and a reserved-category candidate who qualifies purely on merit (without availing age, relaxation or other benefits) is entitled to be treated as a general candidate. The Court highlighted that in the selection process before it, since the petitioner had outscored the general-category cutoff and had not accepted any benefit other than fee relaxation, she was eligible for “merit-migration” to the general category. Accordingly, the Court held that the state authorities erred in not migrating her to the general-category list. It directed that she be treated as selected under the general category, and that the resulting vacancy in the reserved category (BC-WE) be offered to the next eligible candidate from the reserve list.
In its judgment, the Court relied on precedents such as Deepa E.V. v. Union of India, which recognized that reserved-category candidates who do not avail benefit of relaxed criteria (except for fee concession) but earn higher marks than general-category candidates must not be denied general‐category seats. Similarly, the Court referred to a decision in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & Ors. v. Sandeep Choudhary & Ors., which endorsed mandatory migration to general category in such circumstances. The Court observed that administrative lapses or oversight cannot override the principles of fairness and constitutional equality underpinning open‐merit selection.
The Court therefore allowed the writ petition, ordered the candidate’s inclusion in the general category for appointment, and asked the State to fill the freed-up reserved-category vacancy from the reserve-list. The ruling underscores that when merit clearly supersedes category-based quotas—and no other concessions are availed—the open or general category must remain genuinely open, thereby ensuring merit-based selection without discriminatory barriers.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.