Reserved Category Candidate Cannot Claim Unreserved Vacancy Without Securing Higher Marks Than General Cut-Off: Calcutta High Court

"The petitioner did not claim to have secured marks above cut off for UR or UR (EC) Category. Therefore, he cannot be permitted to stake a claim against the vacancy of UR or UR (EC) Category, based on merit." Calcutta High Court, in a significant ruling dated July 20, 2026, held that a reserved category candidate cannot be allowed to migrate to an unreserved category seat unless they secure marks higher than the cut-off prescribed for the general category.

A division bench comprising Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Prasenjit Biswas observed that merit must prevail when a candidate seeks to shift from a reserved to an unreserved post.

The appellant participated in a recruitment drive conducted by the West Bengal Power Development Corporation Ltd. (WBPDCL) for the post of Operation and Maintenance Supervisor-Probationer (Mechanical). Belonging to the OBC-A category and being a land-loser, he fell under the OBC-A Exempted Category (EC). As no vacancies were advertised for his specific category, he challenged the recruitment process, seeking to be accommodated against the Unreserved Exempted Category (UR-EC) posts. The appellant approached the division bench after a single judge dismissed his writ petition.

The primary question before the court was whether a less meritorious reserved category candidate could claim an appointment against an unreserved exempted category vacancy based on non-availability of general candidates. The court was also called upon to determine the strict application of horizontal reservation principles in the context of state recruitment rules.

No Vacancy Advertised For Applicant's Category

The court noted that out of the 14 total vacancies advertised, two were marked for UR(EC), while no posts were allocated for the OBC-A(EC) category. It was emphasized that the appellant had participated in the recruitment process with open eyes, fully aware of this vacancy distribution. The bench categorically ruled that since no vacancy was advertised for the appellant's claimed category, there was no option to grant him reservation benefits.

Migration To Unreserved Category Strictly Based On Merit

Addressing the appellant's reliance on various judgments to claim the UR(EC) seat, the bench clarified that such migration is exclusively contingent on superior merit. The court reiterated that a reserved category candidate can only claim an unreserved seat if their weighted marks exceed the general category cut-off. The bench noted that the cut-off for the OBC-A(EC) category is inherently lower than that of the UR(EC) category to ensure the benefit of reservation to the designated social group.

"Candidate participating against a reserved category post are allowed to migrate to unreserved category post, based on merit, subject to certain terms and conditions... it is only under such circumstance that reserved category candidate, based on merit can migrate to unreserved category."

Reliance On Supreme Court Precedents

The bench comprehensively analyzed the Supreme Court's decisions in Saurav Yadav and Ors. v. State of U.P. and Ors. (2021) 4 SCC 542 and West Bengal State Electricity Transmission Company Ltd. & Ors. v. Dipendu Biswas and Ors. (2026) SCC OnLine SC 532. The court held that the core legal proposition in these judgments is that merit must prevail at all costs. Since the appellant failed to secure marks above the UR(EC) cut-off, he could not derive any benefit from these precedents.

Strict Adherence To Relevant Government Rules

The court further relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India & Ors v. Sajib Roy (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1943), which held that migration depends on specific recruitment rules and whether the candidate scored higher than the last selected unreserved candidate. The bench also found substance in the State's Compendium of Government Orders (Volume-2), which stipulates that Exempted Category (EC) vacancies can only be filled by non-EC candidates of the identical social category in case of non-availability, explicitly preventing cross-category filling.

Finding the appeal completely devoid of merit, the division bench dismissed the plea and upheld the decision of the single judge. The court ruled that the relevant provisions did not permit the filling up of unreserved vacancies by an OBC-A(EC) candidate under the present facts. All pending applications and interim orders were accordingly vacated.

Date of Decision: 20 July 2026