SC Clarifies: Reserved Candidates Beating General Cut-off Must Be Treated as Open Category

The Supreme Court of India has delivered an important judgment on reservation and merit in public recruitment. The Court ruled that if a candidate from a reserved category scores more marks than the general category cut-off at the very first stage of selection, such a candidate must be treated as a general (open) category candidate from that stage itself.

The Court clarified that this is not a case of “migration” from a reserved category to the general category. When merit alone determines selection and no relaxation or concession is taken, the candidate competes in the open category by default.

The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih, which dismissed appeals filed by the Rajasthan High Court administration.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose during recruitment for 2,756 posts of Junior Judicial Assistant/Clerk Grade-II. The selection process had two stages:

• A written examination of 300 marks
• A computer typewriting test of 100 marks

Several candidates belonging to SC, ST, OBC, MBC and EWS categories scored more than the general category cut-off of 196.3451 in the written exam. However, they could not meet the higher cut-offs fixed for their respective reserved categories, which went up to 230.4431 for OBC-NCL candidates.

Despite scoring higher than many general category candidates, these reserved category candidates were not included in the shortlist for the typewriting test. At the same time, general category candidates with lower marks were allowed to proceed.

High Court and Supreme Court’s View

The Rajasthan High Court held that this method was unconstitutional. It ruled that authorities must first prepare a common general merit list based only on marks, without looking at category. Only after this stage should separate reserved category lists be drawn.

The Supreme Court agreed with this reasoning. It rejected the argument that a reserved category candidate can move to the general category only at the final stage of selection. The Court explained that when a candidate qualifies on pure merit without using any relaxation, there is no “migration” involved at all.

No Estoppel and No Double Benefit

The Court also held that candidates were not barred from challenging the process just because they participated in it. The advertisement did not clearly state that reserved category candidates scoring above the general cut-off would still be restricted to reserved lists. Since this illegality became visible only after results were declared, the rule of estoppel did not apply.

The argument of “double benefit” was firmly rejected. The Court said that a reserved category candidate who does not take any age relaxation, fee concession, or lower qualifying marks is not taking any reservation benefit. Such a candidate is simply competing on merit like everyone else.

Meaning of Open Category Explained

The Court clarified that general or open category posts are not meant only for candidates from unreserved communities. These posts are open to all candidates, irrespective of caste or category, as long as selection is based purely on merit.

The Court distinguished earlier judgments where migration was restricted, noting that those cases involved candidates who had availed concessions or where rules clearly barred such adjustment.

Final Directions

The Supreme Court held that recruiting authorities must rank all candidates together based on marks at the first stage. If a reserved category candidate scores higher than the general cut-off, that candidate must be treated as a general category candidate from that point onwards.

However, the Court added a safeguard. If such treatment disadvantages the candidate by pushing them out of a preferred post that is otherwise available in the reserved quota, the candidate should be allowed to choose the reserved option.

The appeals were dismissed, two months’ time was granted for implementation, and the authorities were asked to ensure that existing employees are not disturbed as far as possible.

Case Title: Rajasthan High Court & Anr. v. Rajat Yadav & Ors.