The Supreme Court has held that candidates belonging to reserved categories who secure marks higher than the cut-off prescribed for the General or Open category must be considered for Open category posts during recruitment processes and cannot be excluded merely on the basis of their reserved status. The Court upheld the judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, which had ruled that where a reserved category candidate, without availing any relaxation or concession, outperforms candidates in the General category and crosses the General cut-off, that candidate must be treated as competing in the open category on the sole basis of merit. The Supreme Court clarified that the General or Open category is not a quota reserved exclusively for candidates of any particular community but is a merit-based pool open to all eligible candidates regardless of caste, tribe, class or gender. If reserved category candidates attain marks above the General cut-off, they cannot be confined to their respective reserved lists in a manner that excludes them from consideration for Open category shortlists or appointments.
In the underlying dispute, the recruitment process had involved a written examination followed by a typing test, with category-wise cut-offs applied for shortlisting. The General category cut-off was significantly lower than the higher cut-offs prescribed for several reserved categories. As a result, candidates from reserved categories who had scored above the General cut-off but below their own category cut-offs were excluded from the shortlisting for the next stage of recruitment, despite outperforming many candidates who were shortlisted under the general category. The Supreme Court observed that such exclusion was contrary to the principle that the open category must be accessible to all meritorious candidates on an equal footing, and that reserved category candidates should not be artificially segregated into separate lists in a way that impedes their access to open posts when their marks justify inclusion.
The Court emphasised that reservation is designed as an instrument of affirmative action to address historical disadvantage but does not justify the exclusion of meritorious reserved category candidates from open competition when they demonstrate performance equal to or better than General category competitors. This interpretation aligns with constitutional guarantees of equality and equal opportunity in public employment, which require that all candidates be treated fairly on the basis of merit while reservation operates only in relation to fairly earmarked posts. The Court clarified that if reserved category candidates have not availed themselves of any concession or relaxation—which would constitute the actual exercise of reservation—they compete equally with all candidates on merit and therefore qualify for consideration in the Open category when their scores exceed the General cut-off.
Further, the Supreme Court rejected the notion that allowing such candidates to be treated as Open category participants would confer a “double benefit.” The Court explained that the mere identification of a candidate as belonging to a reserved category does not itself amount to availing the benefit of reservation; actual utilisation of specific relaxations, such as lower qualifying marks or age concessions, would amount to reservation benefits. Where no such relaxation has been claimed and the candidate has demonstrated superior merit, their inclusion in the merit-based open pool is justified as a matter of equality and fairness, rather than being a product of reservation advantages. Treating the open category as a closed compartment reserved only for General category candidates would transform it into an impermissible form of compartmentalisation that runs counter to the constitutional mandates under Articles 14 and 16 that seek to ensure equality of opportunity and non-arbitrariness in public employment.
The Supreme Court’s ruling clarifies that in multi-stage recruitment processes where earlier stages significantly contribute to the final assessment, excellence in performance that exceeds the General cut-off at an early stage cannot be ignored or confined to internal reserved lists. In such situations, those candidates must be assessed with other candidates on a common merit basis and not be restricted by predetermined category segregation which would effectively deny them an opportunity they have legitimately earned on performance. The decision firmly places merit at the forefront of open category selection whenever reserved category candidates demonstrate competitiveness without relying on concessionary benefits. These principles outlined by the Supreme Court are expected to guide recruitment authorities and courts in future disputes concerning the interplay between reservation and open competition in public service recruitments.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.