2025REET | Eligibility Acquired on Relaxed Criteria Does Not Bar Migration If No Concession Availed in Recruitment: Rajasthan High Court

“Merely qualifying through relaxed criteria in REET cannot disentitle a candidate from consideration in general category if no relaxation is availed during recruitment.” — In a landmark ruling Rajasthan High Court and a batch of connected cases, held that candidates from reserved categories who qualified the REET exam on relaxed norms but did not claim any concession in the recruitment process, are entitled to migration to general category posts if their merit is higher than the cut-off for general candidates.

The Bench headed by Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Munnuri Laxman held that "acquisition of eligibility qualification under relaxed norms does not amount to relaxation in the recruitment process." The Court thus quashed the contrary view of the Single Judge and directed the State to revise the select list accordingly.

The case arose out of the 2022 recruitment drive for Upper Primary School Teachers by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (RSSB), pursuant to an advertisement dated 16th December 2022. According to this advertisement, a qualifying score in REET was a mandatory eligibility criterion — 60% for general category and 55% for SC, ST, OBC, MBC, and EWS categories.

The petitioners, though belonging to reserved categories, secured marks higher than the general category cut-off and had not availed of any relaxation (other than REET pass at 55%) during the recruitment. However, their candidature for general posts was rejected on the basis of Clause 8.2 of the advertisement, which was interpreted by the authorities to bar any migration if relaxed criteria were availed, even at the eligibility stage.

The Single Judge dismissed the petitions, holding that those who benefited from relaxation even in REET were barred from seeking migration. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed intra-court appeals before the Division Bench.

The High Court framed the central question as whether clearing REET with 55% marks by reserved category candidates — a standard set by prior government orders — constituted a relaxation in the recruitment process which would bar migration to general category posts.

The Court examined Clause 8 of the Advertisement and the Reservation Policy Circular dated 26.07.2017, which was issued in compliance with the Supreme Court judgment in Deepa E.V. v. Union of India, (2017) 12 SCC 680.

The Court emphasized: “The circular clearly restricts migration only where a candidate has availed benefit of relaxation in the recruitment process — such as age, number of attempts, or application fee. It does not extend to eligibility qualification obtained prior to the recruitment.”

It further observed: “To treat qualification acquired in a professional eligibility test like REET — even before commencement of recruitment — as part of the selection process is both illogical and contrary to the established policy.”

Rejecting the respondent State's interpretation of Clause 8.2, the Court stated: “Clause 8.2 merely reiterates the policy of July 26, 2017 — it cannot be stretched to bar migration for those who simply qualified eligibility tests under relaxed norms, unless they took further benefits during recruitment.”

In supporting its view, the Court deeply relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal, (2017) 1 SCC 350, which held:

“Passing a teacher eligibility test (TET) under a relaxed criterion does not amount to availing relaxation in the recruitment process. It merely enables entry into the process.”

Applying the same logic, the Division Bench reiterated: “REET is an eligibility exam. Relaxed pass marks enable participation, not preference. Once inside the recruitment pool, all compete equally based on merit — hence, migration must be allowed if the candidate’s score surpasses the general cut-off.”

The Court carefully distinguished other Supreme Court decisions like Deepa E.V. and Government (NCT of Delhi) v. Pradeep Kumar, noting that those were based on different factual matrices and policy contexts. The applicable policy in Rajasthan, it clarified, was aligned with Vikas Sankhala, and thus binding.

Quoting Pawan Kumar Dubey v. Regional Manager, (1976) 3 SCC 334, the Bench underlined: “One additional or different fact can make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases, even when the same principles are applied.”

Setting aside the Single Judge’s order, the Division Bench categorically held: “If the appellants have obtained marks more than general category candidates in the recruitment process, they are entitled to be considered against general category posts.”

The Court directed the State to: “Revise the general category select list accordingly and appoint the appellants with notional benefits, including seniority and pay fixation. However, they will be entitled to salary only from the date of this judgment.”

The Bench concluded: “Eligibility qualification obtained prior to recruitment cannot be construed as a concession availed in the recruitment process unless explicitly so provided by rules or advertisement.”

This decision settles a long-debated question on the scope of migration from reserved to general category in public recruitment, particularly in the context of eligibility acquired under relaxed criteria. By drawing a crucial distinction between eligibility and recruitment, the High Court has ensured that merit remains the sole determinant for general category posts, while also protecting the sanctity of reservation policies.

The ruling affirms the principle that “equal competition must not be obstructed by misapplied interpretations of relaxation clauses.” It provides clarity for future recruitment processes, especially in education and civil services.

Date of Decision: 26 May 2025