Migration of reserved candidates to open category allowed, if rules permit: Supreme Court

Apex court says that such migration shall also be permissible if the recruitment rules or employment notification are either silent or do not expressly prohibit it

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that migration of a reserved category candidate who has availed of a concession or relaxation in qualifying examination depends on the recruitment rules or the employment notification. 

"If such recruitment rules or employment notification permits such migration, the same is permissible. Such migration shall also be permissible if the recruitment rules or employment notification are either silent or do not expressly prohibit it,'' a bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe has said.

The court set aside the Bombay High Court's judgment of February 14, 2025, and directed Maharashtra government authorities to include the appellants, belonging to the reserved category, to migrate to general category for they had secured marks higher than the last selected candidate in the open category for the post of teachers to the different schools of zila parishad, municipal corporations, nagar parishad and private managements.

Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in Government of (NCT of Delhi) & Ors vs Pradeep Kumar and Others (2019), the High Court held that candidates availing of the benefit of relaxation cannot migrate to general category and permitting such migration would confer an unfair advantage over general category candidates. It also held that appellants have no enforceable legal right to claim consideration in the open category after having availed of relaxation in the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET).

Assailing the High Court judgment, the appellants argued that the relaxation in a qualifying examination cannot bar migration to the open category, when merit in the main selection examination is higher. It was contended by them that the open category is a merit category and not a quota reserved for general candidates. It was also submitted that the purpose of relaxation in eligibility is to create a level-playing field, not to penalise merit.

The state counsel, on the contrary, contended that candidates who qualified the TET, mandatory requirement, under relaxed standards cannot claim migration to the open category. It was also urged that permitting such migration would amount to granting a double benefit of reservation.

The court noted the minimum qualifying marks for candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), denotified and nomadic tribes (DNT), other backward cClasses (OBC), persons with disabilities (PwD), and other specified categories for passing the TET was 55%.

It is axiomatic that relaxation in one of the conditions of securing 60% marks in qualifying examination i.e. the TET only enabled the reserved category candidates to participate in the main examination i.e. the Teachers Aptitude and Intelligence Test (TAIT), 2022, the bench noted.

"Such relaxation only creates a level-playing field. The inter se merit for appointment has to be determined solely on the basis of the performance in the main examination i.e. the TAIT. No relaxation or concession has been granted to reserved category candidates in the main examination i.e. TAIT and their merit has been evaluated at par with general category candidates," the bench said.

In its judgment on March 23, the court held the appellants who admittedly are more meritorious than the last selected candidate under the general category, cannot be excluded from consideration under the general category, in the absence of any express prohibition in the recruitment rules or notification. 

"The relaxation in qualifying criteria only affects eligibility and not merit and migration is permissible in the absence of any prohibition," the bench said.

In the case, the court noted, the State government has not prescribed any prohibition with regard to migration of such reserved category candidates who have secured more marks than the general category candidates.

The court held the High Court and the Commissioner (Education), Maharashtra government, erred in placing reliance on the decision of this court in the Pradeep Kumar case.