The 'Own Merit' Principle for SC/ST Candidates in India

The 'Own Merit' Principle for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in India: Navigating Law and Judicial Interpretation

Introduction

The principle of 'own merit' in the context of reservations for Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) in India is a critical jurisprudential concept that seeks to harmonize the objectives of affirmative action with the ideals of meritocracy and equality of opportunity. It posits that SC/ST candidates who secure public employment or admission to educational institutions based on their own merit, without availing any reservation-specific relaxations in qualifying standards, should be counted against unreserved (general category) vacancies or seats. This ensures that the reserved quota remains available for those SC/ST candidates who genuinely require the support of reservation to overcome historical disadvantages. This article analyses the evolution, application, and judicial interpretation of the 'own merit' principle under Indian law, drawing significantly from landmark judgments and governmental directives.

The constitutional underpinning for this principle is derived from Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality and empower the State to make special provisions for disadvantaged groups. The judiciary has played a pivotal role in shaping this doctrine, striving to ensure that reservation policies serve as instruments of substantive equality rather than mere formal representation.

Constitutional and Foundational Judicial Perspectives

Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Article 16(4) enables the State to make provisions for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the services under the State. The Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney And Others v. Union Of India And Others (1992)[1], [11], while upholding the scheme of reservations, emphasized that reservations are not anti-meritocratic, as merit is also present among reserved category candidates. The Court noted, "It is undeniable that nature has endowed merit upon members of backward classes as much as it has endowed upon members of other classes and that what is required is an opportunity to prove it."[11]

The genesis of the 'own merit' principle is often traced to the Supreme Court's decision in R.K. Sabharwal And Others v. State Of Punjab And Others (1995)[8]. While primarily dealing with the operation of roster points in promotions, this judgment laid the groundwork for the understanding that SC/ST candidates selected on their own merit against open competition posts should not be adjusted against the reserved quota. This interpretation has been consistently reflected in subsequent Office Memoranda (OMs) issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), Government of India. For instance, DoPT OM No. 36012/2/96-Estt. (Res.) dated July 2, 1997, issued in the wake of R.K. Sabharwal, clarified this position, as noted in cases like Union Of India & Ors v. Bharat Bhushan & Anr (2008)[12] and D.W. Samuel Another v. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench Chennai Others (2007)[21].

Defining 'Own Merit': The No-Relaxation Standard

A central question in applying the 'own merit' principle is the precise definition of being selected 'on own merit'. The consensus emerging from judicial pronouncements and government instructions is that such selection must be without recourse to any relaxed standards specifically provided for reserved categories.

The Tripura High Court in Jayanta Chakraborty v. State Of Tripura (2015)[9] provided a clear articulation: "only those SC and ST candidates who have not got the benefit of being members of SC and ST at any stage of their career can be considered to be own merit candidates and can be adjusted against the general category posts." The court specified that if a candidate avails benefits such as relaxation in experience, qualifications, number of permitted chances in examinations, or an enlarged zone of consideration, they would cease to be an 'own merit' candidate for the purpose of being counted against an unreserved post.[9]

However, the Supreme Court in Jitendra Kumar Singh And Another v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others (2010)[4] clarified that certain concessions, such as age relaxation or fee waivers, which are provided to enable reserved category candidates to compete, do not necessarily equate to a lowering of selection standards. The Court held that if reserved category candidates secure marks higher than the last general category candidate on the merit list, they are to be considered 'own merit' candidates, irrespective of availing such initial eligibility concessions. Section 3(6) of the U.P. Public Services (Reservation for Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes) Act, 1994, which stipulates that a reserved candidate selected in open competition on merit shall not be adjusted against reserved vacancies, was pertinent in this case.[4] The distinction appears to lie between concessions that enable participation and relaxations that lower the substantive qualifying standards for selection.

This 'no relaxed standards' rule is further reinforced by DoPT OMs. As cited in Deepa E.V v. Union Of India And Others (2017)[18], DoPT OMs (e.g., dated May 22, 1989, and July 1, 1998) explicitly state that SC/ST candidates selected on their own merit, without relaxed standards, will not be adjusted against the reserved share of vacancies. These reserved vacancies are to be filled separately by eligible SC/ST candidates who might be lower in merit but are otherwise found suitable, even if by relaxed standards.[18]

It is noteworthy that in State of M.P v. Nivedita Jain, cited in Indra Sawhney[11], the Supreme Court upheld the complete removal of minimum qualifying marks for SC/ST candidates for admission to medical courses under Article 15. This instance, where Article 335 (maintenance of efficiency of administration) was not deemed relevant, presents a specific context and highlights that the application of standards can vary depending on the constitutional provision invoked and the nature of the selection (e.g., education v. employment).

Application in Direct Recruitment versus Promotions

The application of the 'own merit' principle is relatively well-established in the context of direct recruitment. Judicial decisions like Deepa E.V.[18] and consistent DoPT guidelines affirm that SC/ST candidates selected on general merit standards are to be placed against unreserved posts.

However, its application in promotions has been more complex and, at times, contested. The Supreme Court in K. Manorama v. Union Of India (2010)[17] held that the principle of an SC/ST candidate selected on own merit not being counted against the reserved quota applies primarily to recruitment by open competition and not necessarily to promotions effected on the basis of seniority-cum-suitability. This view was also followed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Allahabad Bench, in Original Application No. 1502 of 2012 (2014)[23] with respect to promotions made by a non-selection method.

Conversely, certain Railway Board circulars and High Court interpretations have suggested applicability in promotions if no relaxation is availed. For instance, the Madras High Court in D.W. Samuel[21] referred to Railway Board communication RBE No. 128/2002, which clarified that SC/ST candidates appointed by promotion on their own merit and not owing to reservation or relaxation of qualifications will be adjusted against unreserved points. Similarly, the CAT, Jodhpur Bench, in Union of India v. Shri Jetha Ram (2014)[24] referred to RBE 126/2010, which stipulated that SC/ST candidates promoted on their own merit and seniority (not owing to reservation or relaxation) would be adjusted against unreserved points, irrespective of whether the promotion was by selection or non-selection method. This indicates a divergence in interpretation or policy application within specific departments, particularly concerning non-selection promotions.

The Delhi High Court in Union Of India & Ors v. Bharat Bhushan & Anr[12] also touched upon CAT judgments where SC/ST candidates who had availed accelerated promotion (a benefit of reservation) in their reserved category could not subsequently change their line and ask for promotional avenues as a general category candidate. The principle in Union Of India And Others / v. Virpal Singh Chauhan And Others (1995)[3], that reservation in promotion does not automatically confer seniority over general category promotees, also adds a layer of complexity to how merit and reservation interact in promotional cadres.

The 'Meritorious Reserved Candidate' (MRC) Conundrum

A significant nuance to the 'own merit' principle was introduced by the Supreme Court in Union Of India v. Ramesh Ram And Others (2010)[20]. This case concerned the Civil Services Examination Rules, under which candidates belonging to SC, ST, or OBC categories who qualify on their own merit (i.e., obtain marks above the general qualifying standard) are initially considered general merit candidates. However, if such a 'Meritorious Reserved Candidate' (MRC) opts for a service of higher preference that is available to them only by virtue of their reserved status (because their rank in the general merit list is not high enough for that preference in the general category), they are then adjusted against the reserved quota. The Court held that the seats vacated by such MRCs in the general pool would then be filled by general category candidates. This ruling clarifies that an initial qualification on 'own merit' does not invariably lead to being counted as a general category candidate if subsequent choices or allocations involve leveraging one's reserved status for a more preferred outcome.[20]

Interaction with Horizontal Reservations

The 'own merit' principle also interacts with the framework of horizontal reservations (e.g., for women, persons with disabilities), which cut across vertical reservations (SC, ST, OBC, General). The Supreme Court in Saurav Yadav And Others Petitioner(S) v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others (S) (2020)[7] dealt with a situation where OBC-Female and SC-Female candidates scored marks higher than the cut-off for General-Female candidates. The Court held that such candidates, having qualified on their own merit, were entitled to be selected against the General-Female quota. This implies that their 'own merit' performance allows them to occupy general horizontal slots, ensuring that horizontal quotas are filled first by meritorious candidates from any category, including reserved ones, before specific adjustments are made.

The correct application of horizontal reservations was earlier explained in Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission And Others (2007)[5], where the Court clarified that horizontal reservation is compartmentalized and operates within each vertical category. If a sufficient number of candidates belonging to the horizontally reserved group (e.g., women) are selected on merit within a vertical category (e.g., General, SC, ST, or OBC), then the horizontal reservation for that group within that vertical category is deemed fulfilled. The principles laid down in Jitendra Kumar Singh[4] also contribute to understanding the interplay between vertical and horizontal reservations.

Judicial Scrutiny and Evolving Jurisprudence

The 'own merit' principle, while largely settled for direct recruitment through Supreme Court judgments and DoPT directives, continues to see interpretative nuances, especially in the domain of promotions. The broader constitutional framework for reservations, including considerations of backwardness, adequacy of representation, the 50% ceiling rule, the concept of the creamy layer, and the maintenance of administrative efficiency under Article 335 (as discussed in cases like M. Nagaraj And Others v. Union Of India And Others (2006)[2] and Jarnail Singh And Others v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta And Others (2018)[6]), provides the overarching context within which the 'own merit' rule operates.

The Central Administrative Tribunal in VALERIE AVINASH DHEPE AND ORS v. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT (2025)[14] reiterated, citing several Constitution Bench judgments, that SC/ST candidates selected on merit in the general category cannot be adjusted against reserved category vacancies if selected on their own merit. This underscores the consistent judicial stance on the core principle.

Conclusion

The 'own merit' principle for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidates is a cornerstone of India's reservation jurisprudence. It mandates that SC/ST individuals who compete and succeed on the same standards as general category candidates are treated as unreserved candidates, thereby ensuring that reservation benefits are targeted towards those who need them most. This doctrine effectively balances the constitutional commitments to equality of opportunity under Article 16(1) and the enabling provisions for affirmative action under Article 16(4).

While the principle is clearly established for direct recruitment, its application in promotions, particularly those based on seniority-cum-suitability, and the implications for Meritorious Reserved Candidates choosing preferred services, introduce complexities that require careful navigation. The judiciary, through consistent interpretation, and the executive, through policy directives, continue to refine this principle, striving to achieve substantive equality and social justice without unduly compromising administrative efficiency or individual merit.

References

  1. Indra Sawhney And Others v. Union Of India And Others (1992 SCC SUPP 3 217, Supreme Court Of India, 1992)
  2. M. Nagaraj And Others v. Union Of India And Others (2007 SCC L&S 1 1013, Supreme Court Of India, 2006)
  3. Union Of India And Others / v. Virpal Singh Chauhan And Others (1995 SCC 6 684, Supreme Court Of India, 1995)
  4. Jitendra Kumar Singh And Another v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others (2010 SCC 3 119, Supreme Court Of India, 2010)
  5. Rajesh Kumar Daria v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission And Others (2009 SCC L&S 1 1055, Supreme Court Of India, 2007)
  6. Jarnail Singh And Others v. Lachhmi Narain Gupta And Others (2018 SCC 10 396, Supreme Court Of India, 2018)
  7. Saurav Yadav And Others Petitioner(S) v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And Others (S) (2021 SCC L&S 1 752, Supreme Court Of India, 2020)
  8. R.K Sabharwal And Others v. State Of Punjab And Others (1995 SCC 2 745, Supreme Court Of India, 1995)
  9. Jayanta Chakraborty v. State Of Tripura (Tripura High Court, 2015)
  10. Kanhaiya Lal v. The State And Another (Rajasthan High Court, 1987)
  11. Indra Sawhney And Others v. Union Of India And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 1992) [Specific extract provided]
  12. Union Of India & Ors v. Bharat Bhushan & Anr (Delhi High Court, 2008)
  13. K. Raja And Others v. Additional Chief Secretary To Government And Others (Madras High Court, 2019)
  14. VALERIE AVINASH DHEPE AND ORS v. INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT (Central Administrative Tribunal, 2025)
  15. All India Equality Forum & Others Petitioners v. Union Of India Through Its Secretary And Others S (Delhi High Court, 2017)
  16. Mohan Kumar v. The State of Bihar (Patna High Court, 2024)
  17. K. Manorama v. Union Of India (2010 SCC 10 323, Supreme Court Of India, 2010)
  18. Deepa E.V v. Union Of India And Others (2017 SCC 12 680, Supreme Court Of India, 2017)
  19. Lachhmi Narain Gupta And Others, v. Jarnail Singh And Others, (2011 SCC ONLINE P&H 8144, Punjab & Haryana High Court, 2011)
  20. Union Of India v. Ramesh Ram And Others (2010 SCC 7 234, Supreme Court Of India, 2010)
  21. D.W. Samuel Another v. The Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal Madras Bench Chennai Others (Madras High Court, 2007)
  22. Rajinder Kumar Petitioner v. Union Of India And Others S (Himachal Pradesh High Court, 2015)
  23. Original Application No. 1502 of 2012 v. The Union of India through the General Manager North Central Railway Allahabad. (Central Administrative Tribunal, 2014)
  24. Union of India and Others through v. Shri Jetha Ram (Central Administrative Tribunal, 2014)