The Supreme Court delivered a landmark judgment on December 19, 2025, addressing procedural anomalies in the public employment recruitment process.
Background of the Case
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed and clarified a core constitutional principle governing public employment by holding that reserved category candidates who secure marks higher than the general category cut-off must be treated as open or general category candidates from the very first stage of the selection process itself. Upholding a judgment of the Rajasthan High Court, the court held that the ‘open’ or ‘general’ category is not a reserved compartment exclusively meant for candidates of any particular social group, but a pool open to all candidates on the basis of merit alone. Consequently, excluding a candidate from consideration for unreserved posts solely on the basis of social category, despite securing marks above the general cut-off, violates the guarantees of equality enshrined in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Facts Leading to the Controversy
The controversy arose from a recruitment process initiated in August 2022 by the Rajasthan High Court to fill 2,756 vacancies for the posts of Junior Judicial Assistant and Clerk Grade II in the Rajasthan High Court, the Rajasthan State Judicial Academy, District Courts, and Allied Institutions, including Legal Services Authorities and Permanent Lok Adalats. The recruitment was conducted under the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002, and the Rajasthan District Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986.
When the written examination results were declared in May, 2023, it was found that candidates from reserved categories [i.e., Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), Other Backward Classes (OBCs), Most Backward Classes (MBCs), and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)], who outscored the general cut-off were being excluded despite securing marks higher than the general category cut-off, solely because they did not meet the even higher cut-offs set for their specific reserved categories.
Structure of the Selection Process
The selection process comprised two stages: A written examination carrying 300 marks; a computer-based typewriting test of 100 marks.
According to the rules, candidates who secured the prescribed minimum marks in the written examination were to be shortlisted for the typewriting test, with the shortlist limited to five times the number of vacancies in each category. The final selection was to be made on the basis of aggregate marks of both the stages.
The recruiting authority prepared category-wise shortlists for the typewriting test following the declaration of written examination results. The cut-off marks for the general category were around 196, whereas the cut-offs for several reserved categories—including Scheduled Castes, Other Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes, and Economically Weaker Sections were significantly higher in certain cases exceeding 220 marks.
This method of shortlisting produced a stark and anomalous outcome. Several candidates belonging to reserved categories had secured marks above the general category cut-off yet fell short of the higher cut-offs prescribed for their respective reserved categories. Despite outperforming many candidates shortlisted under the general category, these meritorious candidates were excluded altogether from the shortlist for the typewriting test and were denied the opportunity to compete further in the selection process.
Findings of the Rajasthan High Court
A division bench of the Rajasthan High Court examined the legality of category-wise shortlisting. The high court was careful to define the limits of its intervention. It neither struck down the reservation framework, nor did it hold that category-wise shortlisting was impermissible in all cases. The central issue, as identified by the high court, was the state at which category segregation was applied and the consequences of treating the general or open category as an exclusive compartment.
The high court observed that the problem arose when the general or open category was treated as a compartment exclusively meant for general category candidates at the stage of shortlisting. It held that Article 16(1) of the Constitution guarantees equality of opportunity in matters of public employment, while Article 16(4) permits reservation as an affirmative action to address structural disadvantage. Article 14 underpins both by prohibiting arbitrary classification. The high court clarified that once a candidate secures marks above the general cut-off, denial of consideration for open category posts on the basis of social category undermines equality of opportunity.
The high court also held that placing a more meritorious reserved category candidate in the open category is not an aspect of reservation but a principle rooted in equality and merit. Confining such a candidate to a reserved slot solely because of social identity was held to be discriminatory. Consequently, the high court directed that the shortlists be reworked by first preparing a general or open category list strictly on the basis of merit, including reserved category candidates who had crossed the general cut-off. Only thereafter were reserved category lists to be prepared among the remaining candidates. It further directed that wrongly excluded candidates be given the opportunity to appear in the typewriting test.
Issues Raised before the Supreme Court
The Rajasthan High Court administration and its registrar challenged this judgment before the Supreme Court. Three principal arguments were advanced. First, it was contended that candidates who had participated in the recruitment process were estopped from challenging the procedure after having taken part in it. Second, it was argued that allowing reserved category candidates to be considered in the open category at the shortlisting stage amounted to granting them a double benefit. Third, reliance was placed on earlier precedents to contend that migration of reserved category candidates into the general category was permissible only at the final stage of selection and not at intermediate stages such as shortlisting.
The Supreme Court, comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, rejected all three arguments, while carefully explaining the constitutional and legal basis for doing so.
Principle of Estoppel and Participation in Selection
On the question of estoppel, the Supreme Court acknowledged the general principle that, candidates who willingly participate in a selection process cannot ordinarily challenge the procedure merely because the outcome was unfavourable. Participation, in such cases, implies acceptance of the declared rules of the process. However, the court clarified that this principle is not absolute.
The court held that participation does not amount to acceptance of any illegality in the conduct of the procedure or any constitutional infirmity underlying it. A candidate may challenge the process after participation if the illegality could not reasonably have been discovered earlier despite due diligence, or if the defect was hidden and surfaced only after the declaration of results. In the present case, the advertisement did not indicate that meritorious reserved category candidates who scored above the general cut-off would nevertheless be denied consideration under the open category. The illegality became apparent only after the results were declared. The Supreme Court, therefore, held that the high court was correct in entertaining the writ petitions.
Nature of the Open and General Category
At the heart of the judgment lies a clear constitutional proposition: the open or general category is not a quota. The Supreme Court agreed with the high court that unreserved posts are available to all candidates based solely on merit. Reservation operates only in relation to earmarked posts and does not permit exclusion of candidates from open posts on the basis of social category.
The court clarified that vacancies advertised as open, general, or unreserved do not belong to any specific caste, tribe, class or gender. Such posts are open to all candidates. Mere indication of belonging to a reserved category in the application form does not automatically entitle a candidate to appointment against a reserved vacancy. It merely enables the candidate to be considered along with other reserved category candidates on the basis of inter se merit (the order of merit in respect of various classes, category, and candidature).
Treating the open category as meant exclusively for non-reserved candidates was held to risk converting affirmative action into a form of exclusion and to amount to impermissible compartmentalisation incompatible with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Drawing from earlier Constitution Bench decisions, including Indra Sawhney vs Union of India (1992) and Saurav Yadav vs State of Uttar Pradesh (2021), the court reiterated that a meritorious reserved category candidate who qualifies on open merit cannot be denied consideration for unreserved vacancies.
Rejection of the ‘Double Benefit’ Argument
The Supreme Court firmly rejected the argument that inclusion of reserved category candidates in the open category at the shortlisting stage amounts to granting them a double benefit. The court clarified that a candidate avails the benefit of reservation only when a concession or relaxation, such as lower qualifying marks or relaxed age limits, is actually applied. Mere identification as belonging to a reserved category does not amount to availing the benefit of reservation.
Where a reserved category candidate secures marks above the general cut-off without availing any relaxation or concession, inclusion in the open category flows purely from merit and not from reservation. The assumption that reserved category candidates necessarily avail reservation benefits at every stage of a multi-tier process was described as erroneous.
Migration at the Stage of Adjustment
A key aspect of the judgment concerns the concept of migration. Earlier rulings had confined migration of meritorious reserved category candidates to the general category to the final stage of the selection process, largely because those cases involved preliminary or screening examinations whose marks were not carried forward into the final merit list. In such situations, exclusion of a candidate at an intermediate stage was considered reversible.
The Supreme Court distinguished those cases from the present one, noting that the written examination formed an integral part of the final selection and that exclusion at the short-listing stage effectively foreclosed any possibility of subsequent adjustment.
The court held that once a candidate crossed the general cut-off at such a decisive stage without availing of any concession, there was no question of migration at all. This was properly understood as a merit-based inclusion of the candidate in the open category from the very beginning. Inclusion of a reserved category candidate in the open merit list at the shortlisting stage could not be termed migration as no reservation benefit was being availed.
Methodology Prescribed by the Court
The Supreme Court upheld the high court’s directions on how the selection process should be corrected. At the stage of shortlisting after the written examination, all candidates must be assessed together on the basis of marks alone, regardless of their social category. An open or general category list must be prepared first, strictly on the basis of merit. Reserved category lists are to be drawn only after that from among the remaining candidates not included in the open or general category shortlist.
This treatment continues through subsequent stages. If a reserved category candidate included in the open category on merit continues to perform within the general category vacancies, the candidate is appointed against an unreserved post. If their performance later places them outside the general merit zone but within the reserved category zone, they are then considered for appointment under the reserved category. This ensures that merit is preserved across all categories and that reservation functions as a means of inclusion rather than an instrument of disadvantage.
Protection against Disadvantage within the Reserved Quota
The court introduced an important caveat to prevent an anomalous outcome. Where adjustment of a meritorious reserved category candidate might result in that candidate losing a preferred service or post that remains available within their reserved quota, fairness requires that the candidate be permitted to opt for consideration against the reserved quota. By allowing this flexibility, the court ensured that merit is preserved both across categories.
The court emphasised that merit must not become a penalty. A reserved category candidate who qualifies on open merit cannot be pushed to an unreserved slot if that results in a worse outcome than what would have been available within the reserved category. This approach not only protects merit but also fulfils the constitutional guarantee of substantive equality.
Interaction with Other Recent Verdicts
The Supreme Court’s verdict in the Rajasthan case was contrasted with a contemporaneous judgment arising from the Karnataka case, where the court had refused to appoint a Scheduled Caste candidate to the unreserved cadre of the Indian Forest Service (IFoS) because the candidate had availed relaxation at the preliminary examination stage. In that case, the court treated the availing of relaxation at an early stage of the selection process as rendering the candidate ineligible for consideration against unreserved vacancies.
Together, the two judgments were described as showcasing two sides of the same coin. Where a candidate avails of relaxation at any stage of an integrated selection process, inclusion of the reserved category in an open category is barred.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by the Rajasthan High Court administration and upheld the high court’s proactive stance in correcting a process found to be contrary to constitutional principles. While directing compliance with the judgment, the court acknowledged that revisiting the lists could disturb appointments already made. It, therefore, directed that any correction should be carried out with minimal administrative disruption and that efforts be made, as far as possible, not to dislodge employees already in service.
By reaffirming that the open category is open to all and that merit alone governs appointment to unreserved posts, the judgment reinforces the constitutional vision of equality of opportunity. It clarifies that treating meritorious reserved category candidates as open category candidates from the first stage itself is not an extension of reservation but a direct consequence of equality before law.
© Spectrum Books Pvt Ltd.
