Reserved Category Candidates Scoring Above Open Cut-Off Entitled To Open Category Posts : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has upheld a Rajasthan High Court judgment directing that candidates belonging to reserved categories who secure marks higher than the cut-off prescribed for the General or Open category must be considered in the open category even at the stage of shortlisting, and not confined to their respective reserved categories.

A Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih dismissed appeals filed by the Rajasthan High Court administration and its Registrar, thereby affirming the Division Bench ruling of the Rajasthan High Court dated September 18, 2023.

Background of the dispute

The case arose out of a recruitment process initiated by the Rajasthan High Court in August 2022 for 2,756 posts of Junior Judicial Assistant and Clerk Grade-II in the High Court, district courts, and allied institutions. The selection process comprised a written examination of 300 marks followed by a computer-based typewriting test of 100 marks. Only candidates securing the prescribed minimum marks in the written examination, limited to five times the number of vacancies category-wise, were to be shortlisted for the typewriting test.

After the written examination results were declared in May 2023, it emerged that the cut-off marks for several reserved categories such as SC, OBC, MBC and EWS were higher than the cut-off for the General category. As a result, some reserved category candidates who had scored more than the General category cut-off but less than the cut-off for their own category were excluded from the shortlist for the typewriting test.

Aggrieved candidates approached the Rajasthan High Court, contending that this methodology treated the General or Open category as an exclusive compartment for unreserved candidates and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

High Court ruling

The Division Bench of the High Court held that while category-wise shortlisting was permissible, meritorious reserved category candidates who secured marks higher than the General category cut-off, without availing any special concession, were entitled to be included in the open category list at the shortlisting stage itself. The High Court directed that the General or Open category list must first be prepared strictly on merit, followed by preparation of reserved category lists, excluding those already accommodated in the open category.

It further directed revision of the merit lists and grant of opportunity to wrongly excluded candidates to appear in the typewriting test.

Supreme Court's reasoning

Upholding the High Court's decision, the Supreme Court rejected the appellants' argument that allowing such inclusion would amount to granting a “double benefit” of migration to reserved category candidates.

The Court clarified that the General or Open category is not a quota reserved for any particular class but is open to all candidates purely on the basis of merit. If a reserved category candidate, without availing any relaxation or concession, outperforms General category candidates, such a candidate must be treated as competing for open posts.

“Certainly, mere indication of one's reserved category in the application form does not automatically qualify the candidate for appointment on a reserved vacant post but only enables him/her to stake a claim amongst all reserved candidates based on the inter se merit position. Equally, for a deserving reserved category candidate to be appointed on an unreserved vacant post, it is merit and merit alone that must determine suitability. In other words, for the unreserved vacant posts, the inter se merit among all the competing candidates serves as the benchmark for appointment in public service.”, observed the bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih.

Affirming the High Court's decision and rejecting the Appellant's argument, the judgment authored by Justice Datta noted that the applicability of the 'doctrine of estoppel' is not absolute in the recruitment process, when there arises illegality in the process. The Court said that the Respondents could not have visualised that despite outperforming the open/general category candidates, they would be denied appointment to the open category.

“In the present case, the advertisement was a representation to the aspirants for public employment that category-wise lists would be prepared. None would question such a condition. There was, however, no indication that meritorious reserved category candidates would not be treated as General/Open category candidates even if they outscore the latter. The illegality lies in the action of the appellants in not treating the meritorious reserved category candidates as General/Open category candidates, despite noticing that the former had outperformed and outshone the latter. Since the petitioning candidates could not have possibly visualised such an approach on the part of the recruiters by projecting their own imagination and discover all facts and circumstances that might be in their contemplation to be adopted while drawing up the merit lists at the time they participated in the preliminary written examination, the question of such candidates being estopped from mounting a challenge to the legality of the process does not and cannot arise. The petitioning candidates paid a price for their merit and having challenged the very legality of the process alleging violation of constitutional norms and legal principles, the plea of estoppel could not have defeated such a challenge.”, the court observed.

Reference was made to the judgments of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 and R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745 to reiterate the legal principle that a reserved category candidate who secures equal or higher merit cannot be denied equality of treatment merely on account of his caste or community.

“that the word '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. One does find categories like 'open' or 'unreserved' or 'general' being widely used in course of recruitment drives but they are meant to signify the open/unreserved vacant posts on which any suitable candidate can be appointed, regardless of the caste/tribe/class/gender of such candidate. For all intents and purposes, the vacancies on posts which are notified/advertised as open or unreserved or general, as the terms suggest, are not reserved for any caste/tribe/class/gender and are, thus, open to all notwithstanding that a cross-section of society can also compete for appointment on vacant posts which are 'reserved' – vertical or horizontal – as mentioned in the notification/advertisement.”, the Court observed, citing Indra Sawhney.

“If such a candidate, notwithstanding that he/she belongs to a reserved category maintains excellence in standard even in the second tier of examination (typewriting test, in this case), he/she would cease to be treated as a candidate belonging to any category and entitled to treatment as a candidate seeking appointment on a vacant post which is categorised as General/Open.”, the court added.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.

Cause Title: RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT & ANR. VS. RAJAT YADAV & ORS.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1254

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukul Kumar, AOR Mr. Kartik Seth, Adv. Ms. Aditi Mishra, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Mr. K M Abish, Adv. Mr. Manan, Adv. M/s Chambers Of Kartik Seth, AOR

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Avinash Sharma, AOR Ms. Akanksha Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Jayender S Chandail, Adv. Mr. Jayender S. Chandail, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Adv. Dr. K.S. Chauhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. P.S. Teji, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajit Kumar Ekka, AOR Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Adv. Mr. S. P. Singh, Adv. Mr. S.P. Singh, Adv. Mr. Ravi Prakash, Adv. Mr. R.s.m. Kalky, Adv. Mr. Ravi Shakar Singh, Adv. Mr. Ravi Shankar Singh, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Jain, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Malik, Adv. Mr. Satpal, Adv. Mr. Bhim Kishore, Adv. Mr. Ajit Kumar, Adv. Ms. Anu, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Amit, AOR