Featured Insight: Supreme Court Clarifies Pathways for Reserved Category Candidates to Open Merit

The Supreme Court recently delivered a pivotal judgment with far-reaching implications for public employment and recruitment policies across India. This ruling addresses the intricate balance between reservation benefits and merit-based selection, particularly concerning the migration of reserved category candidates to the open category. For HR professionals, legal practitioners, and policymakers, understanding this distinction is crucial for ensuring fair and legally sound recruitment processes.

Read the Full Article: Here

CHAYA & ORS. ETC. VS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ANR. ETC., decided on 23-03-2026

Key Takeaways from the Judgment:

The case revolved around reserved category candidates who had availed a 5% relaxation in the qualifying Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) marks. Despite subsequently scoring higher than the last selected general category candidate in the main selection examination (Teachers Aptitude and Intelligence Test - TAIT), they were excluded from the open category merit list by the High Court, which relied on the precedent set in *Government of (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. v. Pradeep Kumar & Ors.* (2019).

The Supreme Court's Clarification:

• Qualifying vs. Main Examination: The Court elucidated that a concession or relaxation in a *qualifying* examination (like TET) merely allows a candidate to enter the zone of consideration. It does not inherently impact the determination of merit in the *main selection examination* if no such relaxation applies to the main examination standards.
• Level Playing Field: Such relaxation in a qualifying examination is designed to create a level playing field, provided no further concessions are granted in the ultimate selection, which is based solely on inter se merit.
• Permissibility of Migration: Migration of a reserved category candidate who availed a qualifying examination concession is permissible under three conditions: if recruitment rules explicitly allow it, if they are silent on the matter, or if they do not expressly prohibit it.
• Essential Eligibility Criteria: If a candidate does not meet the essential eligibility criteria prescribed for a selection *without* permissible relaxation (i.e., at the unrelaxed standard), they cannot be allowed to migrate to the open category. However, if the relaxation itself is permissible as per guidelines (e.g., NCTE guidelines for TET), and the main selection is purely merit-based, the situation changes.
• Distinguishing Precedent: The Court distinguished its prior ruling in *Pradeep Kumar (supra)*, noting that it applies differently when the essential eligibility condition itself allows for relaxation as per governing guidelines, and the final selection is determined purely by merit in the main examination.

The Supreme Court ultimately quashed the High Court's judgment, affirming that reserved category candidates who availed TET relaxation are entitled to migrate to the open/unreserved category if their scores in the main selection examination (TAIT) surpass those of the last selected general category candidate. This decision reinforces the principle that where inter se merit is the sole determinant for appointment in the main examination, a qualifying exam relaxation, permitted by relevant guidelines, does not create an insurmountable barrier to open category migration.