MP High Court: Unreserved Category Is Merit Pool, Not General Quota; SC Candidate’s Appointment Restored

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed that the “open” or unreserved category in public employment is a merit pool accessible to all candidates, regardless of caste, and is not a quota reserved exclusively for the general category.

Allowing two writ appeals, the Division Bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal set aside a Single Judge’s order that had cancelled the selection of a Scheduled Caste candidate and directed appointment of an unreserved candidate in his place.

The appeals arose from a recruitment process for the post of Sub Inspector (Radio), where 30 vacancies were advertised with vertical reservations for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Other Backward Classes, alongside horizontal reservations such as for women and ex-servicemen. Aditya Tiwari, belonging to the unreserved category, had challenged the selection process after failing to secure appointment despite obtaining 226 marks.

In the first round of selection, nine candidates were appointed against unreserved posts, including candidates from reserved categories who had secured higher marks on merit. The last selected candidate in the unreserved list had secured 231 marks, higher than Tiwari. Subsequent adjustments were made after certain female-reserved posts were reverted due to non-availability of eligible female candidates, and ex-servicemen vacancies were redistributed in accordance with the rules.

The core dispute centred on whether Anurag Jhariya, a Scheduled Caste candidate, had been wrongly adjusted against a vacancy in the unreserved female quota or whether his selection against a reverted Scheduled Caste ex-servicemen vacancy was lawful. The Single Judge had accepted the petitioner’s contention that horizontal reservations had been improperly applied and issued elaborate directions restructuring the entire select list, including cancelling Jhariya’s appointment.

Appearing for the State, Additional Advocate General Smt. Janhavi Pandit argued that the writ court had exceeded the permissible limits of judicial review in recruitment matters and misapplied the law governing vertical and horizontal reservations. She submitted that the unreserved category is open to all candidates based on merit and that cancelling the selection of a Scheduled Caste candidate would disturb the prescribed reservation percentages. Shri Abhay Tiwari represented the writ petitioner, while Shri Pravesh Naveriya appeared for several private respondents.

The Division bench noted that the controversy regarding the nature of the unreserved category was no longer res integra. Referring to recent Supreme Court pronouncements, including Airport Authority of India v. Sham Krishna B and Union of India v. Sajib Roy, the court observed that the open category is not a quota for general candidates but a merit-based pool accessible to all. “The open category is open to all, and the only condition for a candidate to be shown in it is merit,” the bench recorded, emphasising that migration on merit from reserved categories to open posts cannot be treated as impermissible.

The court further held that earlier reliance on Rajesh Kumar Daria v. RPSC to treat certain horizontal reservations as impermeable compartments was misplaced in light of the latest Supreme Court rulings. The principle that horizontal reservation candidates cannot migrate on merit, the bench observed, “is no longer good law” following the decisions in Union of India v. Sajib Roy and Airport Authority of India v. Sham Krishna B.

Examining the record, the bench concluded that Jhariya had been selected against a Scheduled Caste ex-servicemen vacancy that reverted to the Scheduled Caste category due to non-availability of eligible ex-servicemen. The finding of the Single Judge that he had been wrongly adjusted against an unreserved female vacancy was held to be factually incorrect.

Terming the writ court’s directions unsustainable, the bench set aside the entire restructuring of the select list. “Since we now hold that the candidature of Anurag Jaharia is in accordance with law, all the directions issued by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside,” the court held while allowing both writ appeals.

Case Title: The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Aditya Tiwari and Others and connected matter

Date of Order: 11.02.2026

Bench: Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Pradeep Mittal