Teachers Who Cleared Eligibility Test With Relaxed Marks Cannot Claim Unreserved Posts: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has upheld a recruitment condition barring reserved category candidates who qualified the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) with relaxed qualifying marks from seeking selection against unreserved category teaching posts, holding that such candidates cannot claim migration to the general category after availing a statutory relaxation at the eligibility stage.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf dismissed a batch of writ petitions filed by teacher aspirants challenging Clause 12.4 of the 2024 recruitment notification issued for appointments to the posts of Primary School Teacher and Middle School Teacher in Madhya Pradesh. The petitioners had sought quashing of the clause and directions for consideration of their candidature in the unreserved category on the basis of their performance in the selection examination.

The petitioners were represented by a number of counsel including Senior Advocate Naman Nagrath assisted by Advocate Suyas Vyas, Senior Advocate R.K. Verma assisted by Advocate Bhuvnesh Sharma, Advocate Dinesh Singh Chauhan, Advocate Amit Chaturvedi, Advocate Aryan Urmaliya and others. The State was represented by Government Advocate Dr. S.S. Chauhan.

The dispute arose from the Madhya Pradesh School Education Service (Teaching Cadre) Rules, 2018, which prescribe different qualifying benchmarks in the Teacher Eligibility Test. While candidates belonging to the unreserved category are required to secure at least 60 per cent marks to qualify, reserved category candidates are eligible with 50 per cent marks. The petitioners had cleared the TET as reserved category candidates by securing more than 50 per cent but less than 60 per cent marks and subsequently participated in the 2024 recruitment process.

They argued that despite obtaining marks in the selection examination higher than the last selected candidate in the unreserved category, they were denied consideration against general category vacancies solely because they had availed relaxation in the TET. According to them, the TET was merely an eligibility examination and once qualified, merit for recruitment ought to be determined exclusively on the basis of marks obtained in the selection examination. They contended that Clause 12.4 was contrary to the 2018 Rules, arbitrary and unconstitutional.

The State defended the recruitment condition, arguing that qualification in the TET was an essential gateway to participation in the recruitment process. Since the petitioners entered the zone of consideration by availing a relaxation specifically available to reserved category candidates, they could not subsequently claim parity with candidates who fulfilled the higher eligibility standard prescribed for the unreserved category.

Examining recent Supreme Court precedents, including Chaya v. State of Maharashtra, Union of India v. Sajib Roy, Government (NCT of Delhi) v. Pradeep Kumar and Union of India v. G. Kiran, the High Court observed that migration of reserved category candidates to unreserved posts depends upon the applicable recruitment rules or employment notification. Where such rules expressly prohibit migration after availing a relaxation in qualification standards, the embargo is legally enforceable.

The Bench noted that Clause 12.4 specifically provides that candidates who secured less than 60 per cent marks in the TET and qualified by taking benefit of reservation would not be eligible to migrate to the unreserved category, even if they later scored above the general category cut-off in the recruitment examination. The Court held that the restriction was consistent with the powers conferred under the 2018 Rules, which authorise the State Government to prescribe recruitment procedures and merit determination through executive instructions and recruitment notifications.

Rejecting the challenge, the Court held that “Clause 12.4 of the Recruitment Notification/Advertisement, 2024 is not ultra virus the Rules of 2018 and is a valid and applicable clause.” It further ruled that “Candidates who had qualified the Eligibility Test by availing the benefit of relaxation available to the reserved category candidates are not eligible for migration to the unreserved category.”

Dismissing all petitions, the Bench concluded that reserved category candidates who became eligible for recruitment only because of relaxed qualifying standards cannot subsequently seek appointment against unreserved vacancies in the face of an express prohibition contained in the recruitment notification.

Case Title: Abhilash Jain and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others with connected matters

Date of Order: May 22, 2026

Bench: Chief Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva and Justice Vinay Saraf