Reserved Category Candidates Selected On Open Merit Cannot Be Adjusted Against Reserved Quota To Deny Appointment To Meritorious Reserved Candidates: Bombay High Court

"Merit-based selection in the open category does not reduce the number of opportunities available to candidates under the reserved category. In other words, if a reserved category candidate secures more marks on merit and is appointed against the vacancy meant for open category, then in that event the same would not diminish the quota of the reserve category candidates." In a significant ruling safeguarding the constitutional mechanics of vertical reservation under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India, the Bombay High Court held on October 30, 2026, that the State cannot set off or adjust reserved-category candidates selected purely on open merit against vacancies reserved for that category, thereby depriving downstream meritorious reserved candidates of public employment.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad held that while inclusion in a select list does not confer an absolute right to appointment, Article 14 commands non-discriminatory and fair treatment, disentitling the State from penalising candidates by citing a subsequent reduction in cadre strength to deny relief.

The dispute arose after the Maharashtra Public Service Commission advertised 92 posts of Lecturers across subjects in 2013, with 11 posts earmarked for Scheduled Caste candidates, including three for Scheduled Caste female candidates. The petitioner secured overall rank 74 and stood second within the Scheduled Caste female merit list. However, when issuing appointment orders in 2015, the State adjusted two candidates recommended strictly under the open merit category against the Scheduled Caste female roster points, unlawfully excluding the petitioner from appointment for over eleven years.

Whether the State can adjust candidates recommended on open merit against posts earmarked for a reserved category to the exclusion of eligible reserved-category candidates.

Whether an administrative stipulation permitting alteration in vacancies, or a subsequent reduction in cadre strength, can defeat an applicant's constitutional rights under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

The High Court observed that the roster allocation adopted by the State blatantly undermined settled constitutional jurisprudence governing vertical reservations under Article 16(4). The Bench reiterated that reserved category candidates who secure selection on their own merit are entitled to be treated as open category selectees, without impacting the intake quota statutorily reserved for backward classes.

Open Merit Candidates Cannot Encroach Reserved Quota

The Bench relied extensively on the Constitution Bench dictum in R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab and the decision in Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul to emphasize that the reservation percentage must remain sacrosanct. The Court observed that open competition is open to all, and meritorious reserved candidates occupying general merit slots cannot be counted against the reserved quota to reduce reserved seats.

Rebuking the State’s stance, the Bench remarked that no material was placed on record to show any disqualification or deficiency in the petitioner's eligibility. The Court noted that the State provided no justification whatsoever for deviating from the merit list published by the Commission or for pushing open merit selectees into reserved vacancies.

Right To Non-Discriminatory Treatment Under Article 14

Addressing the State’s defense that empanelment confers no indefeasible right to public appointment, the Court observed that executive discretion is tightly circumscribed by constitutional fairness. The Bench stated that while a recommendation does not create an indefeasible entitlement, Article 14 guarantees a fair and non-discriminatory treatment by the State when filling up vacancies.

The Court held that an administrative clause in an advertisement indicating that posts and reservation details are subject to variation cannot empower the State to act arbitrarily. The Bench observed that such stipulations only preserve the executive power to make lawful modifications under governing rules and cannot override substantive constitutional mandates.

Subsequent Cadre Reduction Cannot Defeat Established Rights

Rejecting the State's submission that no vacancies remained due to a revised staffing pattern implemented in 2025, the Court observed that an employer cannot rely on subsequent post reductions to sustain an unlawful exclusion that occurred a decade earlier. The Bench noted that the petitioner could not be penalized for systemic administrative lapses and wrongful roster adjustments committed by the authorities.

The Court observed that when an applicant is denied appointment due to clear illegality, the lack of current vacancies cannot bar equitable relief. The Bench held that the State must bear the burden of its wrongful exclusion by creating a supernumerary post where regular vacancies are unavailable.

Allowing the writ petition in part, the High Court modified the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal's order and directed the State authorities to issue an appointment order to the petitioner as Lecturer in English within three months. The Court directed that if no vacant post exists, the State must create a supernumerary post to accommodate her. The Bench clarified that the petitioner's appointment shall be prospective in terms of monetary and service benefits, as she had not discharged actual teaching duties during the interregnum.

Date of Decision: October 30, 2026