Relaxation In Qualifying Exam Only Enables Entry Into Zone Of Consideration; Doesn't Bar Migration To Open Category Based On Merit: Supreme Court

"A concession or relaxation in a qualifying examination merely enables entry of a candidate into the zone of consideration and cannot be treated as relaxation in the standard prescribed for qualifying the written examination if such relaxation does not affect the merit which has to be determined solely on the basis of performance in the main examination." – Supreme Court of India.

Supreme Court, in a significant ruling dated March 23, 2026, held that reserved category candidates who avail of relaxation in qualifying marks for an eligibility test are entitled to migrate to the open category if they secure higher merit in the main selection process. A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe observed that such relaxations merely create a level playing field and do not dilute the competitive nature of the final selection. The Court emphasized that in the absence of an express prohibition in recruitment rules, more meritorious reserved category candidates cannot be confined to their respective quotas.

The appeals arose from a Bombay High Court judgment which upheld a merit list for teacher recruitment in Maharashtra that excluded reserved category candidates from the open category. The appellants, despite scoring higher in the Teachers Aptitude and Intelligence Test (TAIT) than the last selected general candidate, were restricted to reserved seats because they had availed a five percent relaxation in the qualifying Teachers Eligibility Test (TET). The High Court had reasoned that passing the TET was a mandatory prerequisite and any relaxation therein disqualified them from competing for unreserved vacancies.

The primary legal question before the Court was whether candidates belonging to reserved categories, who avail relaxation in a qualifying examination to become eligible for a selection process, are entitled to migrate to the open category based on merit secured in the main examination. The Court was also called upon to determine if administrative instructions issued by the State could override the statutory scheme of recruitment when the rules are otherwise silent on migration.

While examining the statutory scheme, the Court noted that Section 23 of the RTE Act and NCTE guidelines expressly permit State Governments to grant concessions in qualifying marks to reserved category candidates. The bench clarified the fundamental distinction between an eligibility test like the TET and a merit-based selection test like the TAIT. The Court observed that the relaxation in TET marks—reducing the passing threshold from 60% to 55%—only served to bring disadvantaged candidates into the "zone of consideration" and did not grant them any advantage in the final merit evaluation.

"The relaxation in one of the conditions of securing 60% marks in qualifying examination i.e. TET only enables the reserved category candidates to participate in the main examination i.e. TAIT. Such relaxation only creates a level playing field."

The bench further delved into the doctrine of "level playing field," relying heavily on the precedents of Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Sankhala. The Court reasoned that since all candidates, regardless of their TET scores, were evaluated on the same standards in the TAIT, the inter se merit remained untainted by the initial eligibility relaxation. The Court pointed out that because the TAIT did not offer any concessions, the competition for open category seats remained purely merit-based once the threshold of eligibility was crossed.

"Concessions and relaxations in fee or age provided to the reserved category candidates to enable them to compete and seek benefit of reservation, is merely an aid to reservation. The concessions and relaxations place the candidates on a par with general category candidates."

A crucial aspect of the judgment involved the Court's critique of the High Court's reliance on Government of NCT of Delhi v. Pradeep Kumar. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had erroneously applied a three-judge bench precedent that dealt with a lack of essential eligibility. In Pradeep Kumar, the candidates were from outside Delhi and did not possess the required OBC certificates or the mandatory 60% marks for the unreserved category. However, in the present case, the Court held that a 55% score for a reserved candidate is a "statutorily permitted pass" and not a failure to meet essential criteria. This distinction is vital, as the Court suggested that treating a permitted relaxation as a "lack of eligibility" would effectively penalize merit.

"The decision of this Court in Pradeep Kumar has no application to the obtaining factual matrix for the reason that decision in Pradeep Kumar (supra) is an authority for the proposition that in case candidates belonging to reserved category do not fulfil the essential eligibility condition, they cannot be permitted to be appointed against the general vacancies."

The Court also addressed the validity of administrative instructions issued by the Commissioner of Education on the day the merit list was published. These instructions, which sought to bar migration based on the interpreted holding in Pradeep Kumar, were found to be unsustainable. The bench held that administrative circulars cannot override the established legal principle that migration is permissible if the recruitment rules are silent or do not expressly prohibit it. The Court reiterated that the "Open Category" is a merit-based category available to all, not a quota reserved exclusively for general category candidates.

"The appellants who admittedly are more meritorious than the last selected candidate under the general category, cannot be excluded from consideration under the general category, in the absence of any express prohibition in the Recruitment Rules/notification."

In its concluding analysis, the Court quashed the High Court's judgment and directed the Maharashtra authorities to include the appellants in the open category merit list if their scores exceeded those of the last selected general candidate. The ruling reaffirms the principle that affirmative action at the eligibility stage does not act as a ceiling on the potential of reserved category candidates to compete on merit in the final selection.

Date of Decision: 23 March 2026