Meritorious SC/ST/OBC Candidates Must Be Treated as Open Category for Unreserved Posts: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has clarified that for appointment against unreserved vacancies, merit alone must determine selection, irrespective of the category to which a candidate belongs. For such posts, the inter se merit of all competing candidates is the sole benchmark.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih explained that it would be illegal not to treat a meritorious reserved category candidate as a general or open category candidate when such a candidate has outperformed others competing for unreserved posts.

Court further said that mere indication of one’s reserved category in the application form does not automatically entitle a candidate to appointment against a reserved vacancy, but only enables the candidate to be considered along with other reserved category candidates based on inter se merit.

Emphasising the constitutional principle of equality under Articles 14 and 16, the bench said that a candidate belonging to the Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Other Backward Class, if selected on merit, must necessarily be treated as an unreserved category candidate. This treatment flows directly from the concept of equality before law and does not require any “migration” or adjustment from the reserved to the unreserved category.

"Where adjustment against the unreserved category would result in a more meritorious reserved category candidate being displaced in favour of a less meritorious candidate within the same category for a preferred service or a preferred post within the reserved quota, the former must be permitted to be considered against the service/post in the reserved quota. This would ensure merit being preserved both across categories and within them, and that reservation functions as a means of inclusion rather than an instrument of disadvantage,'' the bench said.

The bench further observed that if recruitment rules prescribe a procedure contrary to these principles, such rules would prevail only if they withstand constitutional scrutiny.

Explaining the nature of open category posts, the court said 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, even as candidates from various sections of society may also compete for reserved vacancies, whether vertical or horizontal, as notified.

In the present case, court dismissed an appeal filed by the Rajasthan High Court administration and its Registrar against a division bench judgment dated September 18, 2023. The High Court had 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.

The dispute arose from appointments to 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.

Notably, the cut-off marks for several reserved categories, including SC, OBC-NCL, MBC-NCL and EWS, were higher than the cut-off prescribed for the general category.

While upholding the High Court’s decision, the Supreme Court noted that the written examination was not merely a screening test but a substantive and integral part of the selection process. It carried 300 marks out of a total of 400, accounting for 75 per cent of the final assessment.

The bench clarified that inclusion of a reserved category candidate in the open merit list at the shortlisting stage cannot be treated as “migration”, since no reservation benefit or concession is availed at that stage.

The court also reiterated that candidates who willingly participate in a selection process cannot later challenge the procedure merely because the outcome is unfavourable to them. Generally, the principle of estoppel applies in such cases, preventing a candidate who took a calculated chance from questioning the process after failing to secure selection.

However, the bench made it clear that this principle is not absolute. While participation implies acceptance of the prescribed procedure, it does not amount to acceptance of any illegality or constitutional infirmity. Where a challenge relates to misinterpretation of statutory rules or violation of constitutional principles, estoppel cannot bar such a claim.

Court explained that a candidate may challenge the process after participation only if it is shown that the illegality could not have been discovered earlier despite due diligence, or that the defect was hidden and surfaced only after completion of the selection.

The bench also reaffirmed that a person recognised as Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe in one State cannot claim the same status in another State upon migration for employment or education, unless the community is notified as SC or ST in the migrated State as well.

Finally, court appreciated the proactive role of the High Court’s division bench in correcting a situation where the High Court itself was found to be acting contrary to constitutional principles. It clarified, however, that while reconsidering the cases of the petitioning candidates, efforts should be made not to disturb employees already in service, as far as possible.

Case Title: Rajasthan High Court & Anr Vs Rajat Yadav & Ors

Judgment Date: December 19, 2025

Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih