Supreme Court Upholds Merit: Reserved Category Candidates Entitled to Open Seats If They Surpass General Cut-Off

The Supreme Court has affirmed that candidates from reserved categories who score higher than the general category cut-off, without availing any relaxations, must be considered for open or unreserved posts from the shortlisting stage itself.

A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih dismissed appeals filed by the Rajasthan High Court administration in December 2025, upholding a 2023 Rajasthan High Court decision.

The apex court stated that the “open” or “general” category is truly open to all candidates, irrespective of caste, tribe, class, or gender, and is governed solely by merit.

Drawing guidance from landmark judgments like Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992) and Saurav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021), the bench clarified: “The word ‘open’ connotes nothing but ‘open’. Vacancies notified as open, unreserved, or general are not reserved for any specific group and are available to any suitable candidate based purely on performance.”

The court rejected arguments that allowing such candidates into the open category amounts to a “double benefit” or undue “migration.” It stressed that meritorious reserved category candidates who qualify on their own strength do not draw reservation advantages for open posts, and excluding them would violate Articles 14 (equality) and 16 (equality in public employment) of the Constitution.

The dispute originated from a 2022 recruitment drive by the Rajasthan High Court for 2,756 posts of Junior Judicial Assistant and Clerk Grade-II across the High Court, district courts, Rajasthan State Judicial Academy, and allied institutions.

The selection process involved a written exam (300 marks) followed by a typewriting test (100 marks). Candidates were shortlisted category-wise, up to five times the vacancies, based on minimum qualifying marks.

After results in May 2023, cut-offs for several reserved categories — including Scheduled Castes (SC), Other Backward Classes (OBC), Most Backward Classes (MBC), and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) — were higher than the general category cut-off. As a result, some reserved category candidates who exceeded the general cut-off but fell short of their own category’s higher threshold were excluded from the shortlist for the typewriting test.

These candidates challenged the process in the Rajasthan High Court, arguing it treated the open category as an exclusive reserve for unreserved candidates, amounting to unconstitutional compartmentalisation.

The High Court ruled in their favour, directing authorities to prepare the open category merit list first — including qualified reserved candidates — before filling reserved quotas from the remaining pool. It ordered a revision of lists and opportunities for excluded candidates to take the typewriting test.

The Supreme Court endorsed this approach, noting that reservations should promote inclusion, not disadvantage meritorious individuals. It dismissed claims of estoppel (that candidates couldn’t challenge the process after participating) and clarified that simply indicating a reserved status in applications does not bar consideration for open posts.

Also Read: ONGC Gas Blowout Rages in Andhra for Second Day, Experts Roped In