In a significant ruling on the intersection of reservation policy and merit-based selection, the Supreme Court of India has held that candidates belonging to reserved categories can be considered for unreserved (general) category posts on merit even if they have availed relaxation in qualifying criteria provided the recruitment rules do not prohibit such migration.
The judgment, delivered by a bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe, settles a recurring controversy in public employment law and reinforces the principle that eligibility concessions do not dilute merit in final selection.
The case arose from a teacher recruitment process in Maharashtra governed by a two-stage system:
- Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) – a qualifying examination
- Teachers Aptitude and Intelligence Test (TAIT) – the main merit-based examination
Reserved category candidates were granted a 5% relaxation in qualifying marks in TET (55% instead of 60%). However, final selection was based on performance in TAIT, where no relaxation was provided.
Despite securing higher marks than general category candidates in the final merit list, such candidates were denied placement in the general category on the ground that they had availed relaxation at the eligibility stage.
Setting aside the Bombay High Court’s view, the Supreme Court drew a crucial legal distinction; The Court held that relaxation in qualifying exams merely enables participation, Final selection must be based on inter se merit in the main examination and If recruitment rules are silent or do not prohibit migration, such candidates cannot be denied general category seats
The Court categorically observed that:
“Relaxation in qualifying criteria only affects eligibility and not merit… migration is permissible in the absence of any prohibition.”
Further, it emphasised that candidates who are more meritorious than the last selected general category candidate cannot be excluded arbitrarily.
A key doctrinal reaffirmation in the judgment is that the “general” or “open” category is not reserved for any class it is open to all candidates purely on merit.
This aligns with earlier Supreme Court jurisprudence, which has consistently held that Reserved category candidates who meet general cut-offs are entitled to open category posts. Denying such candidates amounts to discrimination and violation of equality principles
One of the central arguments against such migration has been that allowing reserved candidates to claim general seats after availing relaxation amounts to a “double benefit.”
The Supreme Court rejected this reasoning, clarifying that relaxation in eligibility is meant to create a level playing field. It does not confer any advantage in final merit determination. Once candidates compete in the main examination on equal footing, merit must prevail
Importantly, the Court maintained that this principle is not absolute. Migration is permissible only; If recruitment rules expressly allow it, or If rules are silent on the issue. However, where rules explicitly prohibit such migration, candidates cannot claim general category seats after availing relaxation.
The judgment is rooted in core constitutional principles embodies Article 14 i.e., Equality Before Law. Excluding more meritorious candidates solely due to their category violates the principle of equality and Equal Opportunity in Public Employment
The ruling ensures that reservation does not operate as a ceiling on merit, but as an enabling mechanism by applying Substantive Equality Doctrine. The Court reinforces that affirmative action must level the field, not distort competition.
Broader Impact on Recruitment Policies; The ruling provides much-needed clarity for state agencies and commissions handling recruitment processes .Disputes over “migration” between reserved and general categories are common; this judgment lays down a clear guiding principle. The decision strengthens the idea that reservation complements merit it does not override it.
The Supreme Court’s ruling marks an important clarification in India’s reservation jurisprudence. By holding that eligibility relaxation cannot be used to deny merit-based advancement, the Court has ensured that the constitutional promise of equality remains intact within the framework of affirmative action.
At a broader level, the judgment strikes a careful balance protecting the rights of reserved category candidates while preserving the integrity of merit-based selection, a balance that lies at the heart of India’s constitutional design.
