Phase-wise Cut-off “Embargo” Bars Reserved Candidates from Migrating to UR if They Entered the Next Stage Using Reservation Relaxation
1. Introduction
This common order of the Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur), delivered by Hon’ble Shri Justice Deepak Khot on 08-12-2025,
decides a set of writ petitions led by Sana Khan v. The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others (WP No. 12783/2025),
along with connected petitions (WP No. 11022/2025 and WP No. 15406/2025).
The petitioners, belonging to Other Backward Class (OBC) and/or Economically Weaker Sections (EWS),
challenged the police constable recruitment process titled Police Constable Recruitment Test-2023.
Their core grievance was that although their combined marks (written + physical) exceeded the final cut-off for the
unreserved (UR) category, they were denied selection because they were assessed under their reserved category.
The key legal issue was:
Can a candidate who accessed the second stage of a multi-stage selection only by using reserved-category cut-off/relaxation
later claim migration to the unreserved category on the basis of higher aggregate marks at the final stage?
2. Summary of the Judgment
The Court dismissed all petitions. It held that the recruitment scheme was explicitly phase-wise:
only those who met the first-stage cut-off for a given category could progress to the Physical Proficiency Test.
Since the lead petitioner did not meet the first-stage UR cut-off but progressed by meeting the OBC cut-off,
she could not later claim UR selection merely because her final aggregate exceeded the UR final cut-off.
The Court treated the Rulebook as creating an “embargo” against such migration where the candidate entered the next
stage using reserved-category advantage. In reaching this conclusion, the Court relied significantly on the Supreme Court’s formulation
in Union of India & Ors v. Sajib Roy.
3. Analysis
3.1 Precedents Cited
The petitioners anchored their case in the principle that the “open category is open to all”, and that meritorious
reserved-category candidates should not be confined within reserved slots if their merit entitles them to be placed in UR.
The judgment quotes Saurav Yadav to reiterate that reservation should not become “communal reservation” by rigid slotting.
How it influenced (and why it did not help the petitioners):
The High Court accepted the conceptual force of Saurav Yadav, but treated it as operating subject to the
recruitment rule structure. Where the selection is not a single, undivided merit list but a two-stage process
with stage-gates, the Court held that “merit-based migration” cannot be invoked to erase the fact that the candidate
entered the competition for the second stage only because of reserved-category cut-off.
Tej Prakash Pathak is discussed for the broader doctrine that the State should not “tinker with the rules of the game”
midstream—especially by changing eligibility criteria or selection procedure after the process has begun.
The extracted passage also reviews a large line of Supreme Court decisions dealing with changes to selection methodology.
How it influenced (and why it did not help the petitioners):
The High Court treated the dispute not as an unlawful mid-process change, but as a case of
applying the Rulebook as written—particularly the phase-wise cut-off design and the restriction on migration
when relaxation has been availed.
Therefore, the “rules of the game” principle did not operate in the petitioners’ favour because the Court found no impermissible
post-notification alteration undermining fairness; rather, the Rulebook itself created the gatekeeping mechanism.
Cases listed within the quoted portion of Tej Prakash Pathak:
The judgment reproduces the catalog of cases (e.g., C. Channabasavaih v. State of Mysore,
State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha, K. Manjusree v. State of A.P.,
P.K. Ramachandra Iyer v. Union of India, Umesh Chandra Shukla v. Union of India,
Durgacharan Misra v. State of Orissa, etc.) to underline the Supreme Court’s nuanced approach:
not every procedural refinement or cut-off prescription is illegal, especially when justified by standards and recruitment design.
In particular, State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha supports the idea that securing minimum marks does not create an
enforceable right to appointment, and that higher benchmarks may be maintained to ensure competence.
The petitioners relied on Sadhana Singh Dangi for the proposition that even while applying reservation (including horizontal),
merit must be given precedence, and reserved-category candidates can claim UR seats if their merit so warrants.
How it influenced (and why it did not help the petitioners):
The High Court treated Sadhana Singh Dangi as reaffirming the general migration principle, but held it distinguishable
because the present recruitment was constrained by stage-wise qualifying thresholds.
The Court’s key move is to separate:
(i) migration in a unified selection field from
(ii) migration after a candidate has crossed a stage-gate only through reserved relaxation.
(D) Union of India & Ors v. Sajib Roy (2025 SCC Online SC 1943)
This was the respondents’ principal authority and the decisive precedent for the High Court.
The High Court quotes paragraph 32, which summarises the legal position:
migration of reserved candidates to UR depends on the recruitment rules;
if there is no embargo, migration is permitted on merit, but if an embargo exists in the rules, migration is barred.
How it controlled the outcome:
The High Court characterised the Rulebook’s phase-wise cut-off scheme and Rule 14(xi) as creating precisely the kind of
rule-based embargo contemplated in Sajib Roy.
Therefore, even if the petitioners’ aggregate exceeded the final UR cut-off, they could not migrate because their
eligibility to enter stage two arose from reserved-category advantage.
3.2 Legal Reasoning
(i) The recruitment was structured as a stage-gated (phase-wise) competition
The Rulebook contemplated two phases: written examination followed by Physical Proficiency Test.
Clause 11 (as reproduced) indicates that candidates are shortlisted for the next phase on the basis of the first phase cut-off
(category-wise), up to a prescribed multiple of vacancies (with inclusion of all tied at cut-off).
The Court treated this as a filter: you can only add physical test marks to your “competition universe”
if you lawfully crossed the written-test gate under the applicable category threshold.
(ii) The petitioner’s entry to phase two was only possible because of OBC cut-off
On facts, the petitioner had written-test marks (normalized) below the UR cut-off but above the OBC cut-off.
Therefore, had she been treated as UR at phase one, she would not have been shortlisted to take the Physical Proficiency Test at all.
The Court considered it legally impermissible to allow a candidate to use reserved advantage to enter phase two and then, at phase two,
claim UR placement on aggregate marks as if the phase-one gate had been crossed in UR.
(iii) Rule 14(xi) was treated as an express restriction (“embargo”)
The judgment reproduces Rule 14(xi), which (in substance) provides that where a candidate from a reserved vertical category
has taken the benefit of relaxation in eligibility/physical/educational criteria, their count remains within the reserved category.
The Court read this together with the phase-wise cut-off design to conclude that the Rulebook itself prevents the migration claimed.
(iv) Distinguishing the “open category is open to all” line of cases
The Court did not reject the migration principle per se. Instead, it confined its operation:
where the rules define a multi-stage process and the candidate’s very continuation depends upon reserved-category cut-off,
migration at the end would effectively rewrite the competitive field. This, the Court held, would defeat the rule-based stage-gate.
(v) Allegation of similarly situated candidates (Ekta Mahajan, Shivani Tanwar)
The respondents explained that those candidates were treated as UR in the second phase because they had already met
the UR benchmark in the first phase; hence they did not use relaxation to enter stage two.
The Court accepted the distinction in principle: migration is permissible only when the candidate satisfies the UR standard at
the stage where the gatekeeping occurs.
3.3 Impact
(A) On multi-stage recruitment in Madhya Pradesh
The ruling strengthens the enforceability of phase-wise cut-offs and shortlisting filters.
It clarifies that “UR migration on final aggregate” is not automatic where the process is stage-gated and the candidate
crossed a gate only through reserved-category cut-off.
(B) On drafting and litigation around recruitment rules
-
Recruitment authorities are likely to rely more explicitly on embargo clauses (like Rule 14(xi)) and stage-wise cut-offs
to defend category allocations.
-
Candidates challenging non-migration outcomes will have to focus on whether the rule truly creates an embargo and whether it was
applied consistently at the stage that mattered (typically the shortlisting stage).
-
The decision aligns High Court practice with Union of India & Ors v. Sajib Roy, making “rule-based embargo”
the key pivot rather than an abstract, universal migration entitlement.
4. Complex Concepts Simplified
-
Unreserved (UR) category: seats open to all candidates, typically filled purely by merit.
-
Vertical reservation (SC/ST/OBC/EWS): category-based reservation that sets aside a share of seats.
-
Migration to UR: when a reserved-category candidate is so meritorious that they are counted against UR seats,
freeing reserved seats for others in that category.
-
Stage-gated / phase-wise selection: a process where you must qualify one stage (meeting its cut-off) to even be
allowed to participate in the next stage. Your “final total” matters only if you lawfully entered the later stage.
-
Embargo in rules: an express rule that blocks migration to UR if the candidate used any relaxation/reservation benefit
to stay in the process (the Supreme Court in Sajib Roy makes this decisive).
-
Normalized marks: adjusted marks used to equalize differences across exam sessions/sets; courts generally accept them
if the governing rules permit.
5. Conclusion
The High Court’s key contribution is a clear operational rule for multi-stage recruitments:
where the Rulebook creates a phase-wise cut-off filter and an embargo on migration, a candidate who entered the next stage by
availing reserved-category cut-off/relaxation cannot later claim placement in the unreserved category based on final aggregate marks.
The judgment harmonises the “open category is open to all” principle (from Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P. and
Sadhana Singh Dangi And Others v. Pinki Asati And Others) with the rule-sensitive approach crystallised in
Union of India & Ors v. Sajib Roy: migration is merit-based only when the recruitment rules do not prohibit it,
and stage-gates cannot be bypassed by aggregating later-stage performance.