Merit Is Not A Quota – Reserved Category Candidates Can Rightfully Compete For Unreserved Posts Without 'Migration': Supreme Court

“Open category is open to all; the only condition for a candidate to be shown in it is merit, regardless of whether reservation benefit of either type is available to her or him” – Supreme Court reinforces equality in public employment

In a judgment that reinforces the constitutional promise of equality of opportunity in public employment, the Supreme Court of India on 16 January 2026 set aside the Kerala High Court’s directions which had compelled the Airport Authority of India (AAI) to rework its selection process and offer appointment to a lower-ranking unreserved category candidate. The Court held that candidates from reserved categories who compete on merit without availing any relaxation are entitled to be treated as unreserved candidates and their inclusion in the unreserved list does not amount to 'migration' or conferment of a double benefit.

The ruling was delivered in the case titled Airport Authority of India & Others vs Sham Krishna B. & Others, arising out of the recruitment process for the post of Junior Assistant (Fire Service). The Court emphatically held that "open category is not a quota", and clarified that a meritorious reserved category candidate can claim a seat in the unreserved category as a matter of right – not exception.

“Roster Begins After Selection, Not Before It” – Misapplication of Reservation Roster Invalidated

Setting aside the Kerala High Court's order, the bench comprising Justice Satish Chandra Sharma and Justice M.M. Sundresh observed that the High Court had “completely misunderstood the nature and purpose of the reservation roster”, and wrongly applied it “as a parallel selection mechanism rather than an administrative post-selection tool”. The Court held:

“A reservation roster or register is a post-selection administrative instrument meant to monitor cadre composition and future vacancies. It cannot override the merit-based selection process.”

Reiterating settled principles of reservation jurisprudence, the Court declared that the process of appointment is first governed by merit, and only thereafter is the reservation roster applied to determine representation in cadre strength.

“No Migration, No Double Benefit – Just Constitutional Equality” – Reserved Category Candidates Can Rightfully Find Place in Unreserved List

The controversy began when the writ petitioner, Sham Krishna B., challenged his non-selection under the unreserved category, alleging that several reserved category candidates had been wrongly included in the general merit list, thereby denying him a place. Though he scored 128.08 marks, the last selected candidate in the unreserved category had scored more.

The Kerala High Court accepted his argument and directed AAI to rearrange the list by reapplying the DoPT roster, holding that reserved candidates should have been included only in the reserved category.

However, the Supreme Court rejected this approach as fundamentally flawed. In the Court’s words:

“There is no legal infirmity in adjusting a reserved category candidate against an unreserved post if they have not availed any relaxation and have scored higher marks than unreserved candidates. This is not migration. This is merit.”

The Court relied heavily on its previous rulings in Indra Sawhney, Saurav Yadav, and most recently in Rajasthan High Court v. Rajat Yadav, to clarify that merit is the only governing principle in filling open category seats, irrespective of caste or community. The Court emphatically stated:

“A reserved category candidate who has outscored or outshone general category candidates in a merit-based examination cannot be punished for belonging to a reserved class.”

“Courts Cannot Rewrite Merit Lists in the Name of Roster” – Judicial Overreach in Selection Process Reversed

The Supreme Court took strong exception to the High Court’s direction to rework the merit list and offer appointments, stating: “The High Court erred in substituting its own view in a matter where the selection was conducted strictly in accordance with the rules and settled law. The appointments had already been made as per merit, and no judicial interference was warranted.”

The Court underscored the principle that “no candidate has a vested right to appointment merely because vacancies remain unfilled in their category”, especially when the unreserved seats have been filled lawfully by meritorious candidates from across categories.

The Court also observed that the petitioner’s claim had no merit because he scored less than the last selected candidate in the unreserved list, and therefore, could not stake a claim merely by pointing out unfilled OBC vacancies.

“Equality Before Law Means Equal Opportunity, Not Equal Outcome” – Apex Court Clarifies Reservation Purpose

Rejecting the argument that reserved vacancies should be ring-fenced exclusively for reserved candidates and that unreserved posts must be filled only by general category candidates, the Court held: “The open or unreserved category is not a caste-specific pool – it is an open field where all candidates compete. Once a candidate has performed without availing concessions, he must be judged by merit alone, not social identity.”

Referring to the constitutional ethos, the Court affirmed: “Affirmative action must not result in exclusion. A system that penalizes merit under the garb of reservation violates the very spirit of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16.”

“Merit Secures Appointment, Not Caste Identity” – No Direction to Appoint Lower-Scoring Candidate

Concluding that the petitioner had no enforceable legal right to appointment, the Court held that there was no error in AAI treating higher-scoring reserved category candidates as general category selections, and that the High Court had committed a legal and factual error in ordering his appointment.

The Court ruled: “In the present case, all 122 unreserved vacancies were filled up strictly based on merit. The writ petitioner, who scored less than the cut-off, could not have been included merely because of his unreserved category status. Merit governs selection – not caste.”

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Airport Authority of India, thereby setting aside the Kerala High Court’s judgment, and dismissed the connected appeal filed by another candidate who had sought similar relief.

In doing so, the Court reaffirmed the legal position that has long been settled – merit-based selection remains sacrosanct, and reserved category candidates cannot be excluded from unreserved posts if they secure their position without availing any reservation benefit.

Date of Decision: 16 January 2026