Relaxation in Qualifying TET Does Not Bar Migration to Open Category When Merit Is Based on Main Exam and Rules Do Not Prohibit

1. Introduction

Chaya & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. (Supreme Court of India, 23-03-2026) concerns teacher recruitment in Maharashtra through the Teachers Aptitude and Intelligence Test, 2022 (TAIT), conducted by the Maharashtra State Council for Education (MSCE). The appellants—candidates belonging to reserved categories—had qualified the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) by availing the State’s permitted relaxation in qualifying marks (55% for reserved categories instead of 60% for general category). Although they scored higher than the last selected open-category candidate in TAIT, their names were excluded from the open-category merit list dated 25.02.2024 on the ground that they had used relaxation in TET.

The central legal issue was narrow but recurring in public employment: whether a reserved-category candidate who avails relaxation in a qualifying/eligibility examination (TET) can “migrate” to the open/unreserved category on the basis of higher merit in the main selection examination (TAIT).

2. Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s decision and held that:

  • Relaxation in TET (a qualifying eligibility test) affects eligibility, not merit, where final selection/merit is determined solely by performance in TAIT.
  • In the absence of an express prohibition in the recruitment rules/notification, reserved-category candidates who are more meritorious in TAIT cannot be denied consideration in the open category merely because they used relaxed qualifying marks in TET.
  • The High Court and the State erred in relying on Government of (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors., which was held inapplicable on facts and principle.

The Court directed the respondents to include in the merit list those appellants who secured marks higher than the last selected general-category candidate.

3. Analysis

3.1 Statutory and Policy Framework (Why TET and TAIT Matter Differently)

The Court anchored its analysis in the recruitment architecture under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. Under Section 23, only persons with minimum qualifications prescribed by the academic authority are eligible to be appointed as teachers. The NCTE notification/guidelines required TET as a minimum qualification (an eligibility threshold), while Maharashtra’s recruitment policy made TAIT the basis for merit selection.

The NCTE’s Clause 9 (guidelines dated 11.02.2011) fixed 60% as TET pass marks but expressly permitted the State/school managements to grant concessions to SC/ST/OBC/differently abled persons in line with reservation policy—making relaxation structurally legitimate within the eligibility stage itself.

3.2 Precedents Cited (and How They Shaped the Rule)

(A) Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors.; (2010) 3 SCC 119

This decision provided the conceptual foundation: concessions like age/fee relaxations are entry-facilitating measures that bring reserved candidates into the zone of consideration; they do not distort inter se merit where selection standards are uniform in the competitive stages.

The Court in Chaya adopted the same logic: relaxation used to become eligible to sit for the main selection cannot, by itself, disqualify a candidate from being considered in the open category when merit is later determined on equal footing.

(B) Vikas Sankhala & Ors. v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors.; (2017) 1 SCC 350

Vikas Sankhala directly addressed relaxation in TET qualifying marks and upheld it as affirmative action. Critically, it distinguished between:

  • TET as eligibility (a gatekeeping qualification), and
  • Recruitment merit (compiled under separate heads, applied uniformly).

The Supreme Court in Chaya treated this as strongly persuasive: when the main recruitment test (here, TAIT) applies no concession in evaluation and determines inter se merit, then relaxation in the qualifying test merely levels access and does not justify denying open-category migration to a more meritorious candidate.

(C) Government of (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors.; (201 9) 1 0 SCC 1 20

The High Court treated Pradeep Kumar as controlling. The Supreme Court disagreed, sharply narrowing its relevance. In Pradeep Kumar, the respondents failed an essential eligibility criterion for open-category consideration—most notably, they had not passed CTET with the general standard of 60% and also faced issues connected to OBC status vis-à-vis NCT of Delhi.

In Chaya, by contrast:

  • The NCTE framework itself permitted relaxation in TET; thus, 60% was not “essential” for all.
  • Merit was determined by TAIT, not TET; hence, TET relaxation did not contaminate the competitive merit stage.

The Court therefore treated Pradeep Kumar as authority only for the proposition that where essential eligibility for open category is not satisfied, migration is impermissible—a condition absent on these facts.

(D) Union of India & Ors. v. Sajib Roy; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1943

Sajib Roy stressed a rules-based approach: whether relaxed-standard candidates can be counted in open vacancies depends on the specific recruitment rules/notification. The Court in Chaya accepted this principle but applied it against the State: Maharashtra’s governing framework did not contain an express bar preventing migration merely because TET was cleared with relaxed marks.

(E) UNION OF INDIA v. G. KIRAN & Ors.; 2026 INSC 15

G. Kiran denied migration because the governing rules explicitly barred it when any relaxed standard was used “at any stage”. Chaya treated this as distinguishable: there was no comparable express prohibition in the applicable Maharashtra recruitment scheme/notification for TAIT, and, additionally, the Court noted that Vikas Sankhala was not considered in G. Kiran.

(F) Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.; 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1912 and Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust (Registered) & Ors. v. Union of India; (2014) 8 SCC 1

These decisions were referenced in the judgment’s survey to highlight ongoing debates about the scope of TET (notably, applicability to minority institutions). They were not determinative of the “migration” issue in Chaya, which turned on the eligibility-versus-merit distinction and the absence of a prohibitory rule.

Other authorities were listed as relied upon in submissions (e.g., Saurav Yadav & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.; Indra Sawhney & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.; Rajasthan High Court and Another v. Rajat Yadav and Others; Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors.; V. Lavanya & Ors. v. State of Tamil Nadu), but the Court’s operative reasoning did not depend on them.

3.3 The Court’s Legal Reasoning (Eligibility vs Merit; Silence vs Prohibition)

The Court’s reasoning proceeds in three linked moves:

  1. Classify TET correctly: TET is a qualifying/eligibility condition under the NCTE regime. Its purpose is to ensure minimum competence; it is not, in this recruitment framework, the basis of ranking.
  2. Locate merit in TAIT: Under Maharashtra’s Resolution dated 07.02.2019, selection is based on TAIT marks. Since no relaxation/concession was applied in TAIT, inter se merit was assessed uniformly.
  3. Apply a rules-based migration principle: Migration can be denied if recruitment rules/notification expressly prohibit it, or if the candidate fails an essential eligibility condition for open category. Here, neither condition was met: the rules did not bar migration, and TET relaxation was permitted by design.

The Court also disapproved the State’s reliance on administrative communications issued on/after the merit list (communication dated 25.02.2024 and instructions dated 26.02.2024), which attempted to import restrictions based on Pradeep Kumar and Government of India memoranda. It held that the Office Memorandum dated 04.04.2018 (Ministry of Personnel) pertained to Central Government recruitments and could not be mechanically applied here.

3.4 The “Legal Principles” Formulated by the Court (Operative Ratio)

The judgment explicitly distilled five principles; the ratio relevant to future disputes is that:

  • Relaxation in a qualifying exam that merely enables eligibility does not bar migration to open category, where final merit is determined solely by the main exam/interview with no concession.
  • Migration is governed by the recruitment rules/notification: it is permissible if allowed, and also if the rules are silent or do not expressly prohibit it.
  • Migration is impermissible where the candidate does not meet essential eligibility for the open category.

3.5 Impact (Administrative Practice, Future Litigation, and Drafting of Recruitment Rules)

The decision has immediate and systemic consequences:

  • Teacher recruitment in Maharashtra: Reserved-category candidates who cleared TET with permissible relaxation cannot be excluded from open-category selection if their TAIT merit places them above the open cut-off, unless a valid recruitment rule expressly bars it.
  • Constraint on executive “clarifications”: Post-facto administrative directions cannot rewrite recruitment conditions, particularly by misapplying precedents or Central Government OMs not adopted as binding norms for the recruitment at hand.
  • Drafting signal to rule-makers: If a State intends to bar migration where any relaxed standard is used at the eligibility stage, it must do so through clear, express provisions in the recruitment rules/notification—otherwise, courts may treat silence as permissive.
  • Doctrinal clarity: Pradeep Kumar is confined to cases of failure of essential eligibility (and comparable contexts), and should not be used as a blanket “no migration after any relaxation” rule.

4. Complex Concepts Simplified

  • “Qualifying/eligibility examination” (TET): A threshold test. Passing it makes a candidate eligible to be considered; it does not, by itself, determine selection.
  • “Main selection examination” (TAIT): The competitive test used to rank candidates and prepare the merit list.
  • “Relaxation” vs “concession in merit”: Relaxation in eligibility (e.g., lower pass marks in TET) helps access the competition. A concession in merit would mean giving extra marks/lower cut-offs in the ranking stage; that did not occur in TAIT.
  • “Migration to open category”: If a reserved-category candidate scores high enough on merit, they can be counted in the open/unreserved list, preserving reserved seats for other eligible reserved candidates—unless rules prohibit such movement.
  • “Essential eligibility condition”: A mandatory requirement that must be satisfied to be considered at all for a post/category. In Chaya, 60% in TET was not essential for reserved candidates because the governing guidelines permitted relaxation.

5. Conclusion

Chaya v. The State of Maharashtra reaffirms a practical equality principle in recruitment law: when the State itself lawfully relaxes an eligibility threshold for reserved categories, and selection is thereafter made on a common merit standard in the main exam, the relaxation cannot be converted into a disqualification from the open category—unless the governing recruitment rules expressly say so.

By distinguishing Government of (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors. and applying the logic of Jitendra Kumar Singh & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Ors. and Vikas Sankhala & Ors. v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Ors., the Court clarifies that eligibility relaxations are not synonymous with merit advantages. The judgment is likely to guide future disputes across sectors where qualifying tests serve as gateways and a separate, uniform competitive process determines the final merit list.