“Open Category is Open to All”: Supreme Court on Merit-Based Inclusion of Reserved Category Candidates at Every Stage of Recruitment

“Open Category is Open to All”: Supreme Court on Merit-Based Inclusion of Reserved Category Candidates at Every Stage of Recruitment

Case: Rajasthan High Court & Anr. v. Rajat Yadav & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 14112 of 2024 with batch
Citation: 2025 INSC 1503 (Supreme Court of India, 19 December 2025)
Bench: Dipankar Datta, J., and Augustine George Masih, J.

Contents

1. Introduction

This judgment marks a significant clarification in Indian reservation jurisprudence on how meritorious reserved category candidates are to be treated in multi-stage recruitment processes. The core principle laid down is that:

“The open/general/unreserved category is not a separate ‘quota’ for non-reserved candidates; it is a field of competition open to all, and any candidate – including those from reserved categories – who outperforms others on merit must be treated as an ‘open category’ candidate at every stage of the selection, unless clearly barred by valid rules or by availing prohibited concessions.”

The case arose out of recruitment to posts of Junior Judicial Assistant / Clerk Grade-II in the Rajasthan High Court and subordinate courts, where:

  • Cut-off marks for certain reserved categories (SC, OBC-NCL, MBC-NCL, EWS) in the written test were higher than those for the General category.
  • Reserved category candidates who scored more than the General cut-off, but less than their own category cut-off, were excluded from the list of candidates shortlisted for the second-stage typewriting test.
  • They were not treated as open/general candidates despite having better marks than many General candidates who were shortlisted.

The Rajasthan High Court (Division Bench) held this approach unconstitutional. The High Court administration appealed. The Supreme Court has now affirmed the High Court’s view and given detailed guidance on:

  • When and how the principle of “migration” of reserved candidates to the open category operates;
  • How shortlisting should be done in multi-tier exams; and
  • The true meaning of the “open” or “general” category in a constitutional sense.

2. Factual Background and Procedural History

2.1 Recruitment Framework

The recruitment was governed by:

  • Rajasthan District Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986, and
  • Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002, which provided for recruitment to Junior Judicial Assistant / Clerk Grade-II through:
    • a written test (300 marks), and
    • a typewriting test on computer (100 marks).

On 5 August 2022, the Rajasthan High Court issued an advertisement inviting applications for 2756 vacancies of Junior Judicial Assistant / Clerk Grade-II in:

  • Rajasthan High Court,
  • Rajasthan State Judicial Academy,
  • District Courts and allied institutions, including Legal Services Authorities and Permanent Lok Adalats.

Vacancies were distributed across:

  • Vertical categories: General, SC, ST, OBC (NCL), MBC (NCL), EWS, Saharia, etc.
  • Horizontal reservations: PwD, women (including widow/divorcee sub-categories) etc.

2.2 Scheme of Selection

The scheme (para 5 of the judgment) was:

  • Written Test – 300 marks
    • Qualifying marks:
      • General: 50%
      • OBC & “other categories”: 45%
      • SC/ST/PwD: 40%
    • Only candidates securing prescribed minimum marks, up to five times the number of vacancies, category-wise, would be called for the typewriting test.
  • Typewriting Test on Computer – 100 marks
  • Final Merit List: based on aggregate of written + typing marks (300+100).

Note (ii) under Clause 15 of the advertisement stated that candidates who secured the prescribed minimum percentage (45%, or 40% for SC/ST/PwD) would be called for the typewriting test, subject to the cap of five times the number of vacancies (category-wise). If several candidates were tied at the cut-off, all at that mark would be included.

2.3 Written Test Results and Anomalous Cut-off

The written test was held on 12 and 19 March 2023; results were declared on 1 May 2023. Candidates were shortlisted for the typewriting test (26–29 May 2023) up to five times the vacancies, category-wise.

The crucial anomaly (para 8 and para 21) was that the cut-off marks for several reserved categories were higher than the cut-off for the General category:

  • General: 196.3451
  • SC (main): 202.4398; SC (Women): 200.0362
  • OBC-NCL (main): 230.4431; OBC (Women): 226.2512
  • MBC-NCL (main): 203.3569; etc.
  • EWS (main): 224.5384

Respondent candidates belonged to reserved categories but had scored:

  • more than the General cut-off (196.3451),
  • but less than the cut-off prescribed for their own reserved categories.

They were consequently excluded from both:

  • the reserved category shortlist (because they did not meet the higher reserved cut-off), and
  • the General shortlist (because the administration treated “General” as an exclusive compartment for non-reserved candidates).

In effect, less meritorious General candidates were shortlisted, while more meritorious reserved candidates were left out at the shortlisting stage.

2.4 Writ Petitions Before the Rajasthan High Court

Rajat Yadav and similarly situated candidates filed a batch of writ petitions (lead case: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7564 of 2023) before the Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench. They sought:

  • Quashing of the result dated 1 May 2023 and the cut-off methodology, and
  • A direction that reserved category candidates scoring higher than the General cut-off be included in the General list and be permitted to appear in the typewriting test.

The Rajasthan High Court, by judgment dated 18 September 2023, allowed the writ petitions and directed re-drawing of shortlists and merit lists by:

  1. First preparing the General/Open category list purely on merit (irrespective of category), up to five times the number of General vacancies, subject to no special concessions having been availed;
  2. Then preparing reserved category lists after excluding those already included in the General list;
  3. Allowing wrongly excluded candidates to appear in a fresh typewriting test, and reworking appointments accordingly, with possible displacement of less meritorious appointees if necessary.

The High Court administration and its Registrar appealed to the Supreme Court.

3. Summary of the Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and fully upheld the Rajasthan High Court’s decision, while refining the legal reasoning and embedding it within constitutional and precedential frameworks.

Key holdings:

  1. No estoppel against constitutional challenge: Candidates who participated in the exam are not barred by estoppel from challenging a selection process when the alleged illegality:
    • was not apparent from the advertisement, and
    • relates to a constitutional infirmity – here, denial of equal treatment to more meritorious reserved candidates (paras 41–47).
  2. No “double benefit”: migration is not multiple benefits but a function of merit: The idea that reserved candidates would receive “double benefit” (once at written test stage, again at final stage) is rejected as misconceived. If a reserved candidate does not use any relaxation/concession and outperforms others on merit, they are simply competing in the open category (paras 48–50, 71).
  3. Open category is truly open to all: Drawing on Indra Sawhney and Saurav Yadav, the Court reiterates that:
    • The “General” or “Open” category is not a compartment reserved for non-reserved candidates.
    • It is a merit-based field open to every candidate, regardless of caste, class, or gender (paras 59–63, 61–62).
  4. Meritorious reserved candidates must be treated as open category candidates at every relevant stage:
    • At the stage of shortlisting for the next tier, all candidates are to be arranged in a combined merit list.
    • Those at the top, irrespective of category, fill the General/Open slots.
    • Only thereafter are reserved category lists to be drawn (para 68).
    • This holds even at intermediate stages like shortlisting from the written test, where that stage substantially contributes to final merit (para 73).
  5. Chattar Singh distinguished: Chattar Singh v. State Of Rajasthan is distinguished because:
    • In that case, marks of the preliminary exam were not counted towards final merit (Rule 13 of the 1962 Rules).
    • Here, the written exam forms a substantial and integral 75% (300 out of 400) of final merit.
    • Therefore, migration/adjustment principles at the written stage are justified and Chattar Singh’s reasoning does not apply (para 73).
  6. “Migration” re-characterised as inherent merit adjustment: The Court conceptually reframes “migration”:
    • If a reserved candidate, without availing concessions, scores sufficiently high to be within the open quota, then:
      • He/she is to be treated as an open category candidate,
      • without any need for “migration” or shifting; the candidate is simply a top-merit candidate (paras 67–70).
  7. Protection of preference for more meritorious reserved candidates: If forcing such a meritorious reserved candidate into the General category would:
    • deny him/her a preferred post or service in the reserved quota,
    • while that preferred post goes to a less meritorious candidate from the same reserved category,
    then the more meritorious candidate must be allowed to opt for the reserved quota to claim the post of preference (para 74, aligning with Alok Kumar Pandit and Mukul Biswas).
  8. Final outcome:
    • Appeals dismissed; High Court’s directions affirmed (para 76).
    • High Court is advised, as far as possible, not to dislodge employees already in position (para 77).
    • Time to comply with the High Court’s order is extended by two months (para 79).

4. Detailed Analysis

4.1 Core Issues Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court had to resolve, essentially, three interrelated questions:

  1. Estoppel question: Are candidates who participated in the recruitment process barred (on grounds of estoppel/acquiescence) from challenging:
    • the category-wise shortlisting methodology, and
    • the failure to treat meritorious reserved candidates as open-category candidates at the written test stage?
  2. Scope and timing of migration: Does the principle that a meritorious reserved category candidate can be counted in the General category operate:
    • only at the final stage of preparing the select list (as the appellants argued), or
    • also at intermediate stages (like shortlisting for a second-tier test) when merit is being quantified and used to filter candidates?
  3. Legality of treating the “General” category as a closed compartment: Is it constitutionally permissible to treat the General/Open category as if it were reserved exclusively for non-reserved candidates, thereby:
    • excluding more meritorious reserved candidates from competing for open seats, and
    • permitting lesser-merit General candidates to progress?

The Supreme Court’s answer to all three issues favoured the writ petitioners/respondents.

4.2 Estoppel and Challenge after Participation

The High Court had rejected the objection that candidates were estopped from challenging the selection process after participating in it. The Supreme Court agrees, but carefully delineates the limits of estoppel.

4.2.1 General Rule: No Challenge After Participation

The Court acknowledges the line of precedents that usually bar a candidate from challenging a selection process post participation, such as:

These decisions stand for the proposition that:

  • If a candidate knowingly accepts the rules and procedure of a competition and participates in hope of success,
  • He/she generally cannot, after failure, attack those very rules merely because the result was unfavourable.

4.2.2 The Exception: Illegality or Constitutional Infirmity

However, this rule is not absolute. The Court relies on:

to hold (paras 43–45) that:

  • Participation implies acceptance of the prescribed process, not of any illegality or unconstitutionality in its application.
  • Where the challenge is to:
    • a misconstruction of statutory rules, or
    • a violation of constitutional principles (like Articles 14 and 16),
    the plea of estoppel cannot bar the challenge.
  • Further, estoppel should not apply where:
    • Despite due diligence, the candidate could not reasonably have known of the illegality at the time of participation, or
    • The flaw surfaces only when the recruitment authority actually implements the procedure in a constitutionally infirm way (para 45).

4.2.3 Application to the Present Case

The advertisement did state that lists would be prepared category-wise, but:

  • There was no indication that meritorious reserved candidates would be prevented from being treated as General/Open category candidates even if they outscored General candidates (para 46).
  • The illegality lay in:
    • the conduct of the recruiters – treating General/Open as an exclusive compartment for non-reserved candidates, and
    • denying more meritorious reserved candidates the benefit of open competition.

Since this was not apparent on the face of the advertisement and only emerged upon publication of results and cut-offs, the Court holds that estoppel does not operate.

4.3 “Migration” and the Concept of Open Category

4.3.1 Affirmative Action and Equality

The Court (para 58) reiterates that:

  • Article 14’s equality guarantee includes eliminating inequalities in status and opportunity, and justifies affirmative action for disadvantaged groups.
  • Article 16(4) enables reservation in public employment for inadequately represented backward classes.
  • Article 335 recognises special consideration for SC/ST claims in public employment.

The question is not merely formal equality but real-world consequences of how reservation and open competition are operationalised.

4.3.2 Vertical vs Horizontal Reservation and “Open Category”

Relying on Indra Sawhney and Saurav Yadav, the Court clarifies (paras 59–61):

  • Vertical reservations (SC/ST/OBC etc.):
    • Reserved seats can only be filled by candidates from that social category.
    • However, candidates from these categories may also compete for open seats on merit.
    • If selected on merit in the open category, they do not eat into the reserved quota.
  • Horizontal reservations (e.g., women, PwD):
    • They “cut across” categories, being “interlocking” rather than separate compartments.
    • First, candidates are considered in the open list; then horizontal quotas are adjusted within each vertical category.
  • Open/General/Unreserved category:
    • Not a quota for “General” caste candidates.
    • Open to all – SC, ST, OBC, General, etc. – purely based on merit.
    • The only condition is performance, not social category.

Quoting Saurav Yadav, the Court adopts the formulation that: “The open category is not a ‘quota’, but rather available to all… The only condition… is merit, regardless of whether reservation benefit … is available.” (paras 60–61).

4.3.3 The Meaning of “Migration” in Reservation Jurisprudence

The judgment separates two different uses of “migration” (paras 64–66):

  1. Scenario 1: Inter-State Reservation Migration
    Where a person moves from one State to another: hold that a person recognised as SC/ST in one State cannot automatically claim SC/ST status in another State unless that State’s list also includes that caste/tribe.
    This is not at issue here.
  2. Scenario 2: Merit-Induced Shift (often called “migration”)
    A reserved category candidate, by virtue of superior merit, is placed in the open category list. This is the present case.

The Court emphasises that in the second scenario, the term “migration” is somewhat misleading (paras 67–70):

  • Where a reserved candidate outperforms all others in a qualifying examination, without availing concessions, and is ranked among the top performers:
    • He/she must be treated as a General/Open category candidate in that stage.
    • This is not really “migration”; it is simply a merit-based classification for open seats.
  • At the final stage, if the candidate remains within the range of open seats in the combined merit list, he/she is counted as a General/Open candidate.
  • If the candidate falls below the open cut-off but remains within the range of reserved seats, he/she is counted in the reserved category (para 68).

In short, the Court re-characterises “migration” as a natural consequence of merit-based ranking, not a grant of benefit at multiple stages.

4.4 Application to Multi-Tier Selection and Shortlisting

4.4.1 The Two-Tier Process

The recruitment had two stages:

  1. Written test (300 marks) – qualification plus shortlisting for typewriting.
  2. Typewriting test on computer (100 marks) – final suitability test.

The controversy arose at the stage of shortlisting after the written test, before the typewriting test.

4.4.2 The Court’s Illustrative Example

To explain proper shortlisting, the Court gives an illustrative scenario (para 68):

  • Suppose there are:
    • 100 General (open) vacancies; and
    • 100 reserved vacancies (SC/ST/OBC etc.).
  • Up to five times the vacancies (i.e., 500 candidates for each category) can be shortlisted for the second stage.

The correct process the Court describes is:

  1. Prepare a broad-sheet / master list of all candidates who passed the written test, arranged in descending order of marks, without reference to category.
  2. Open category shortlisting:
    • From this combined list, take the top candidates required for the General/Open shortlist (e.g., up to five times 100 = 500), irrespective of their social category.
    • A reserved category candidate “C” who outscores General candidates will appear here purely by merit.
  3. Reserved category shortlisting:
    • After the open shortlist is drawn, prepare separate lists for each reserved category (SC, ST, OBC, etc.) from the remaining candidates in descending order of marks.
    • Shortlist up to five times the reserved vacancies for each category.
    • If C is already in the open shortlist, he/she is not counted again in the reserved shortlist.

At the final stage:

  • A new combined broad-sheet is prepared by adding written + typing marks.
  • Open category posts are filled from the top of this combined list, regardless of category.
  • Reserved posts are then filled from the remaining candidates in each reserved list.

4.4.3 Distinguishing Chattar Singh

The appellants relied heavily on Chattar Singh v. State Of Rajasthan, (1996) 11 SCC 742, arguing that:

  • Migration is not applicable at preliminary or screening stages.
  • It operates only at the final stage when the complete merit list is drawn.

The Supreme Court distinguished Chattar Singh (para 73):

  • In Chattar Singh, Rule 13 of the 1962 Rules clearly provided that:
    “The marks obtained in the Preliminary Examination … will not be counted for determining final order of merit.”
  • Thus, the preliminary exam was a pure screening test whose marks were irrelevant for final selection.
  • In the present case:
    • The written test is not a mere preliminary; it is a substantive stage, carrying 300/400 marks (75% of final merit).
    • Therefore, performance in the written test is decisive for final selection.

Consequently, the ratio of Chattar Singh – that migration is only relevant at the final stage – is not directly applicable. Here, the written test is effectively part of the “main” stage, so merit-based treatment at that stage is inevitable and constitutionally required.

4.4.4 Recruitment Rules May Vary, But Must Be Constitutional

The Court notes a qualification (para 69):

  • The method it outlines applies to selection processes of the present kind.
  • If specific recruitment rules for some other process expressly provide otherwise, those rules would prevail – subject to constitutional scrutiny.

No such restrictive rule or executive instruction was shown in the present case (para 71). Thus, the High Court was free – indeed, obliged – to treat meritorious reserved candidates as open category candidates.

4.5 Precedents Cited and Their Treatment

A considerable body of precedent was discussed. The Supreme Court carefully harmonises them, distinguishing where necessary.

4.5.1 Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217

Indra Sawhney laid the foundational principle that:

  • Backward class candidates who are selected on merit in the open competition are to be counted as open candidates, not against reserved quotas.

This case undergirds the Court’s insistence that:

  • Open category is truly open,
  • and merit-based selection in open seats by reserved candidates does not diminish reserved quotas (para 59).

4.5.2 R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745

Reinforced the principle that reserved candidates selected on merit in open competition are not to be counted against reserved posts. The present Court uses this to stress that:

  • Excluding more meritorious reserved candidates from open competition is constitutionally impermissible (paras 22–23, 53).

4.5.3 Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P., (2021) 4 SCC 542

Saurav Yadav clarified the mechanism of vertical and horizontal reservations and emphasised:

  • The open category is not a quota but a field open to all on merit.
  • Migration (adjustment) to open category is warranted where a reserved category candidate scores better than the last open category selectee.

The present Court draws heavily on the concurring opinion of Justice S. Ravindra Bhat:

  • To define features of vertical reservations and mobility from reserved to open category (para 60); and
  • To reiterate that the open category is open to all (paras 60–61).

4.5.4 Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal, (2017) 1 SCC 350 and Pradeep Singh Dehal v. State of H.P., (2019) 9 SCC 276

These cases concerned:

  • Whether reserved category candidates who availed relaxation in TET or other concessions could still migrate to general seats.

In Vikas Sankhala, the Court ultimately held:

  • Migration to general seats is permissible if:
    • the reserved candidate scores more than the last selected General candidate, and
    • such candidate did not avail any “special concession” other than relaxed qualifying marks in TET (which were held not disqualifying for migration) (para 84.2).

Pradeep Singh Dehal (paras 15–17) reiterates this and insists on a joint merit list and scrutiny of concessions actually availed.

The present judgment uses these cases to highlight:

  • The distinction between:
    • Structural concessions (like age relaxation or fee), and
    • Relaxations in selection standards (e.g., lower qualifying marks).
  • And the rule that migration is subject to whether the candidate has availed prohibited concessions or is explicitly barred by applicable instructions.

4.5.5 Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan, (2018) 11 SCC 352

This case examined state circulars on migration in Rajasthan and held:

  • The State can define criteria for migration of reserved candidates into the General category, and
  • Concessions and relaxations are within the State's discretion under Article 16(4).

The present ruling remains consistent with this by:

  • Recognising State freedom to set rules,
  • But insisting that in absence of a valid express bar, merit-based adjustment to open category must operate (para 69, 71).

4.5.6 Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 119 and Deepa E.V. v. Union of India, (2017) 12 SCC 680

In Jitendra Kumar Singh, under the U.P. 1994 Reservation Act and a Government Order, the Court held:

  • Relaxation in age and fee for reserved candidates is merely to bring them within the zone of consideration.
  • These do not affect the level playing field in the actual competition (main exam + interview).
  • Therefore, such candidates can be treated as General category if they score sufficiently high in the merit list (paras 72, 75 of Jitendra).

In Deepa E.V., the Court held that:

  • Where there is an express bar (like proceedings dated 1-7-1998) stating that those who avail any relaxation shall not be considered for General seats,
  • That bar must be respected and Jitendra Kumar Singh cannot be applied.

The present Bench adopts this nuanced approach (paras 54–55):

  • If there is an express statutory or executive bar on migration after availing concession, that bar prevails.
  • If there is no such bar, and the candidate has only availed benign concessions like age or fee relaxation, that alone does not disqualify him/her from being counted as a General candidate.

Here, it is undisputed that:

  • The writ petitioners had not availed any concession/relaxation (para 71).
  • No law, rule or instruction barred their treatment as General candidates.

4.5.7 Nirav Kumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. GPSC, (2019) 7 SCC 383 and Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. Pradeep Kumar, (2019) 10 SCC 120

These decisions stress that:

  • Candidates who avail age relaxation or relaxed qualifying marks under notified policies may, in some schemes, be barred from migration to General category seats.
  • It depends on the text of the relevant rules/notifications and their characterisation of such relaxations as part of reservation under Article 16(4) (e.g., Nirav Kumar, paras 24, 36).

The present Court acknowledges this line (paras 52–56) but distinguishes the present case on the facts:

  • There is no such express bar in the Rajasthan scheme.
  • The petitioners had not availed any such relaxations.

4.5.8 Alok Kumar Pandit v. State of Assam, (2012) 13 SCC 516 and Mukul Biswas v. State of West Bengal, 2010 SCC OnLine Cal 1983

Alok Kumar Pandit addressed a specific anomaly:

  • A more meritorious reserved candidate could end up in a less preferred service (e.g., IRS) as an open category appointee,
  • While a less meritorious candidate of the same reserved category, appointed against a reserved seat, might get a more preferred service (e.g., IAS).

The Court held (para 24.1 of Alok):

  • A meritorious reserved candidate is entitled to the service/post of his choice consistent with his ranking,
  • And cannot be forced into a lower-preference open post that results in a less meritorious reserved candidate getting a better post.

The present judgment fully endorses this approach (para 74), stating:

  • If counting a meritorious reserved candidate in the General category would deprive him/her of a more preferred reserved post in favour of a less meritorious candidate from the same reserved category,
  • Then the more meritorious candidate must be allowed to be counted in the reserved quota to claim the preferred post.

This ensures:

  • Merit is protected both across and within categories, and
  • Reservation does not become a source of disadvantage for meritorious reserved candidates.

4.5.9 Recent Horizontal Reservation Cases: Sadhana Singh Dangi and Ramnaresh @ Rinku Kushwah

The Court also refers to:

Both reiterate the principle (derived from Saurav Yadav) that:

  • Meritorious reserved candidates are entitled to be counted in the open category for seats to which horizontal reservations (like women, PwD) also apply.
  • The illegal “compartmentalisation” of horizontal reservations (treating them as isolated pockets) is impermissible.

This reinforces the general theme: merit-first, then reservation; open seats are genuinely open.

4.6 Application to the Rajasthan JJA/Clerk Recruitment

With these principles, the Court assesses the impugned selection:

  • The shortlisting mechanism operated category-wise, with separate cut-offs for each category.
  • As a result:
    • SC/OBC/MBC/EWS cut-offs were higher than the General cut-off.
    • Reserved candidates with marks between “General cut-off” and “their own higher category cut-off” were excluded from further stages.
    • Less meritorious General candidates with lower marks were included in the General shortlist.

The Court agrees with the High Court’s characterisation (paras 21, 25–26):

  • This effectively treated the “General” category as a compartment reserved exclusively for non-reserved candidates.
  • It amounts to a form of communal reservation – a concept repeatedly rejected in constitutional jurisprudence.
  • It violates Articles 14 and 16 by:
    • denying more meritorious reserved candidates the opportunity to compete in the open field, and
    • preferring less meritorious General candidates solely on the basis of category.

Thus, the recruitment suffered from a fundamental illegality, not merely a procedural irregularity, justifying the High Court’s intervention.

4.7 Caveat: Protecting Choice of Posts for More Meritorious Reserved Candidates

The Court adds an important nuance (para 74):

  • Consider a scenario where:
    • A reserved candidate “X” is more meritorious than other reserved candidates.
    • If X is forced to be counted as a General candidate, he might get a less preferred post/service.
      • more preferred post/service reserved for that category.
  • This outcome would:
    • Violate the principle that merit should be rewarded both across and within categories, and
    • Generate discontent and perceived unfairness, contrary to the ethos of public service.

Hence:

  • A meritorious reserved candidate should be allowed to be considered against reserved quota:
    • if that ensures him/her a more preferred service/post than what he/she would obtain in the open category; and
    • if otherwise, a less meritorious candidate of the same reserved category would get the preferred post.

This caveat ensures that:

  • Reservation remains a tool of inclusion, not a source of intra-category injustice, and
  • The principle of migration/adjustment is applied in a manner that maximises fairness.

5. Complex Concepts Simplified

5.1 Vertical vs Horizontal Reservation

  • Vertical reservation:
    • Based on social category like SC, ST, OBC, EWS.
    • Seats earmarked for SC can only be filled by SC candidates, and so on.
    • These categories are, in principle, non-interchangeable (SC seats cannot be filled by OBC if SC candidates are available).
  • Horizontal reservation:
    • Based on cross-cutting traits like gender (women), disability (PwD), ex-servicemen, etc.
    • These reservations “cut across” vertical categories, so there are SC-women, OBC-women, General-women, etc.
    • First fill open and vertical seats on merit; then adjust to ensure required horizontal slots are filled in each vertical category.

5.2 “Open/General/Unreserved” Category

This is often misunderstood as a “category” in itself. The Court clarifies:

  • “Open” or “General” seats are simply seats not reserved for any specific social category.
  • They are open to everyone – SC, ST, OBC, General, etc. – based purely on merit.
  • They are not a reservation for “General caste” candidates.

5.3 “Migration”

In common usage, “migration” in reservation cases refers to:

  • A candidate from a reserved category being counted against open seats because of high merit.

The Court observes that instead of imagining someone walking from one compartment to another, it is clearer to think of it as:

  • Single merit staircase: All candidates line up according to marks.
  • The top X candidates, regardless of category, fill open seats.
  • Only the next set of candidates fill reserved seats.

“Migration”, so understood, is not a benefit but an acknowledgement of superior merit.

5.4 Double Benefit Argument

The appellants’ “double benefit” argument was that:

  • If reserved candidates are migrated to General at:
    • the written test shortlisting stage, and
    • again at the final merit list stage,
    they are deriving two layers of advantage.

The Court explains why this is wrong:

  • At both stages, the candidate is simply being placed in the list on merit, without taking any reserved benefit.
  • There is no duplication of benefit; it is the same merit being recognised at two linked stages.

5.5 Estoppel in Recruitment Challenges

Estoppel, in this context, means:

  • You cannot first accept the rules of a game, play, lose, and then challenge the rules.

But there are exceptions:

  • If the “rules” actually followed deviate from the representation made, or
  • If the process violates constitutional guarantees that could not have been known earlier,

then estoppel cannot prevent a court from correcting unconstitutional procedures.

6. Impact and Prospective Significance

6.1 For Recruitment Bodies Across India

The judgment will have far-reaching implications for:

  • Public Service Commissions,
  • High Courts and Judicial Service Authorities,
  • State recruitment boards and departments, and
  • Central and State exam-conducting bodies (for jobs and, by analogy, for admissions where similar logic is applied).

Key operational impact:

  • Shortlisting must respect merit across categories – before drawing category-wise lists, recruiting agencies must:
    • prepare a combined merit list, and
    • first fill the open category with top scorers irrespective of category.
  • It will no longer be permissible to:
    • treat General as a “closed” pool for non-reserved candidates at intermediate stages, or
    • allow cut-offs in reserved categories to exceed General cut-offs in a way that blocks more meritorious reserved candidates from moving ahead.

6.2 Clarifying the Scope of Chattar Singh and Similar Rulings

The judgment carefully confines the operation of Chattar Singh and related decisions:

  • They apply where the earlier stage (e.g., preliminary exam) is clearly specified as a non-merit-carrying screening test.
  • Where an exam stage substantially contributes to final merit (as here, 300/400 marks), the principles of merit and open-category access apply even at that stage.

This prevents recruiting bodies from using “preliminary” or “shortlisting” labels to justify practices that effectively undermine equality.

6.3 Strengthening Merit Within the Reservation Framework

The Court’s approach strengthens:

  • Merit-based competition across categories:
    • ensuring that the best-performing candidates, regardless of category, access open seats; and
  • Merit-based fairness within categories:
    • via the caveat that more meritorious reserved candidates should not lose preferred posts to less meritorious ones.

Thus, the decision is not hostile to reservation; rather, it ensures that:

  • Reservation operates as a floor for representation, and
  • Merit still governs allocation of both open and reserved posts.

6.4 Litigation Prospects

The ruling provides a strong basis for:

  • Challenging recruitment processes where:
    • General cut-off is lower than reserved cut-offs,
    • yet more meritorious reserved candidates are excluded from open lists.
  • Review of ongoing or recent recruitments where:
    • Category-wise shortlisting schemes operated without prior combined merit ordering.

At the same time, the Court’s suggestion that existing appointees not be disturbed as far as possible (para 77) will likely prompt courts to:

  • Prefer adjustments and additional opportunities for wrongly excluded candidates,
  • Resort to displacement of current appointees only in hard necessity.

7. Conclusion and Key Takeaways

This judgment provides a structured and principled restatement of how reservation and merit must interact in Indian public employment, especially in multi-tier recruitment processes.

7.1 Core Takeaways

  1. Open category is genuinely open: It is not reserved for “General” candidates; it is a merit-based field open to all categories. Any more meritorious candidate, including those from SC/ST/OBC/EWS, must be treated as an open category candidate where they outscore others.
  2. Merit-based adjustment applies at every substantive stage: Where a stage (like the written test) substantially contributes to final merit, meritorious reserved candidates must be allowed to compete for open slots at that stage itself, not only at the final selection stage.
  3. Category-wise shortlisting cannot override constitutional equality: Category-wise shortlisting is permissible, but only after the open category has been filled on combined merit. Treating General as an exclusive compartment for non-reserved candidates is unconstitutional.
  4. Estoppel does not protect unconstitutional processes: Participation in an exam does not bar candidates from challenging:
    • Hidden illegalities in the process, or
    • Misapplication of reservation principles that violate Articles 14 and 16.
  5. “Migration” is not a double benefit: A reserved candidate who does not avail relaxations and secures high marks simply earns open-category status by merit. Treating him/her as open category is not a second benefit but a recognition of performance.
  6. Recruitment bodies must use combined merit lists first: The Court operationalises the principle by insisting on:
    • A combined merit broad-sheet,
    • Filling open seats first strictly on merit, and
    • Then preparing reserved lists from remaining candidates.
  7. Protection of intra-category merit and preferences: The Court cautions that the migration principle should not be applied mechanically to deny more meritorious reserved candidates access to better posts/services in the reserved quota. They must not lose out to less meritorious peers due to rigid application of labels.

7.2 Broader Significance

In a landscape where recruitment designs increasingly use multi-stage examinations and complex reservation matrices, this judgment provides clear constitutional and operational guidance. It reinforces that:

  • Reservation is a tool of inclusion, not exclusion;
  • Open category competition is for everyone, not just the non-reserved;
  • Merit and social justice can, and must, be harmonised by careful design of selection procedures.

By upholding the Rajasthan High Court’s view against the recruitment scheme framed by the High Court administration itself, the Supreme Court also sends an important institutional message: no public authority, including the judiciary as employer, is exempt from constitutional discipline in matters of recruitment and reservation.

Case Details

Year: 2025
Court: Supreme Court Of India

Advocates

ABHINAV MUKERJI

Comments