Reserved Category Candidate Who Outshines the General Category Is Entitled to Be Treated as a General Category Candidate: Supreme Court

“Open Category Means Open to All” , the Supreme Court in Rajasthan High Court & Anr. vs Rajat Yadav & Ors., dismissed a batch of civil appeals filed by the Rajasthan High Court administration challenging a High Court judgment which held that meritorious reserved category candidates could not be excluded from the General/Open category list at the shortlisting stage of a two-tier recruitment process. The Supreme Court, speaking through a Bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, upheld the High Court’s decision, ruling that such exclusion violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and offends the foundational principle of equality in public employment.

“The Open Category Is Not a Quota Reserved for General Category Candidates Alone… It Is Open to All on the Basis of Merit”: Supreme Court Declares

At the heart of the constitutional dispute was the recruitment for 2756 posts of Junior Judicial Assistant/Clerk Grade-II in the Rajasthan judiciary, governed by the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002 and the Rajasthan District Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986. The selection involved a written test (300 marks) followed by a typewriting test (100 marks). The controversy arose when candidates from reserved categories, despite securing marks higher than the General category cut-off in the written test, were not shortlisted for the typewriting test under the General category. Instead, they were placed solely under their respective reserved categories, which ironically had higher cut-offs, leading to their exclusion from the second stage.

This approach was struck down by the Rajasthan High Court, and the decision was affirmed by the apex court. The Supreme Court held that the failure to include more meritorious reserved category candidates in the open category at the shortlisting stage constituted an impermissible denial of equality under Articles 14 and 16.

The Court categorically held, “the ‘open’ connotes nothing but ‘open’, meaning thereby that vacant posts which are sought to be filled by earmarking it as ‘open’ do not fall in any category.” The judges emphasized that “for all intents and purposes, the vacancies on posts which are notified/advertised as open or unreserved or general... are not reserved for any caste/tribe/class/gender and are, thus, open to all.”

Anomalous Cut-Offs and Exclusion Despite Merit

The recruitment advertisement issued on 5 August 2022 invited applications for 2756 posts in the High Court, District Courts, and allied institutions. The category-wise cut-off marks, when published after the written exam in May 2023, revealed a disturbing anomaly – candidates from Scheduled Castes (SC), Other Backward Classes (OBC), and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) needed higher marks than General category candidates to qualify for the next stage. For instance, the General category cut-off was 196.34, while the OBC cut-off was as high as 230.44 and SC cut-off 202.43.

Consequently, several reserved category candidates who had marks higher than the General cut-off but lower than their respective reserved category cut-offs were excluded from the shortlist altogether. The High Court Division Bench (Jaipur Bench), on 18 September 2023, held this method to be unconstitutional and ordered that the General/Open list be drawn purely on merit, including all reserved category candidates who had scored above the General cut-off without availing any relaxation. The reserved category lists were to be prepared only after excluding such meritorious candidates already adjusted in the General category.

The High Court judgment also provided a corrective mechanism – candidates who were wrongly excluded were to be given a fresh opportunity to appear in the typewriting test. The Supreme Court not only endorsed this directive but also extended time for its implementation by two months.

The primary legal issues were:

1. Whether reserved category candidates who secured marks above the General category cut-off can be excluded from the open merit list at the shortlisting stage?
2. Whether including such candidates at both shortlisting and final stages would amount to a “double benefit”?
3. Whether candidates who participated in the recruitment process are estopped from challenging it later?

On all three counts, the Supreme Court found in favour of the petitioning reserved category candidates.

Rejecting the High Court administration’s plea of estoppel, the Court observed: “The petitioning candidates could not have possibly visualised such an approach on the part of the recruiters... The plea of estoppel could not have defeated such a challenge.”

On the issue of “double benefit,” the Court dismissed the contention outright, stating: “The apprehension of a ‘double benefit’, therefore, is misconceived... a candidate who clears each tier on merit without availing any relaxation is not availing any reservation benefit at all.”

The most significant finding came on the interpretation of “migration” – the term frequently used to describe the shift of a reserved category candidate to a general seat. The Court held that when a candidate secures merit-based inclusion without availing of any concession, the concept of migration does not arise at all.

“Such a meritorious candidate, notwithstanding that he/she belongs to a reserved category... must be treated as a candidate who has competed for the ‘unreserved’ category,” the Court stated emphatically, adding that there is “no requirement of any migration or adjustment.”

Court’s Disapproval of Treating Open Category as an Exclusive Slot for General Candidates

The apex court criticized the High Court administration’s stance as an impermissible form of “communal reservation,” drawing upon its prior judgments including Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab (1995), and the recent Saurav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021). Referring to these, the Court reaffirmed that open/unreserved seats are open to all, and not just general category candidates.

Referring to Saurav Yadav, Justice Datta remarked, “The open category is open to all, and 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.”

Clarifying Precedents on Multi-Tier Recruitment and Reserved Candidate Treatment

The Court took care to distinguish earlier rulings, especially Chattar Singh and Dharamveer Tholia, which had held that migration of reserved category candidates is to be considered only at the final appointment stage. The Supreme Court made it clear that those cases were based on examination schemes where preliminary stages had no impact on the final merit list. In contrast, the written examination in the Rajasthan recruitment carried 75% weight and formed a substantive part of the final assessment.

“The main written examination here is not a mere preliminary/screening test... Its weight and determinative value distinguish it from the limited preliminary stage examination contemplated in Chattar Singh,” the Court held.

Equal Opportunity in Service Preferences: Supreme Court’s Caveat on Displacement Risks

In a nuanced observation, the Court acknowledged a potential future challenge: a more meritorious reserved candidate counted as General may lose out on a preferred service or post reserved for his category. The Bench clarified that in such a case, the candidate “must be permitted to be considered against the service/post in the reserved quota” to prevent injustice and preserve internal merit within the reserved category.

This observation finds its resonance in Alok Kumar Pandit v. State of Assam (2012) and the Calcutta High Court’s view in Mukul Biswas v. State of West Bengal, where the right of a meritorious reserved category candidate to opt for a better post within the reserved quota was upheld.

Supreme Court Commends High Court’s Proactive Role in Upholding Constitutional Mandates

Before concluding, the Supreme Court appreciated the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court for rectifying what it termed as a contravention of constitutional ideals by the High Court administration itself. The Bench recorded: “We appreciate the proactive stance of the Division Bench of the High Court while it rectified a situation where the High Court itself was found to contravene constitutional ideals.”

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upheld the High Court’s judgment in full, and reiterated that:

• Merit is to be preserved at every stage of the selection process;
• Open category is accessible to all candidates regardless of caste or community;
• Reserved category candidates securing higher marks than General cut-off are to be included in the Open list;
• There is no “migration” when selection is purely merit-based and unaccompanied by any concession.

Time to comply with the High Court’s order was extended by two months. The Court urged the High Court to ensure that while implementing the judgment, dislocation of already appointed candidates be avoided as far as practicable.

Date of Decision: 19 December 2025