In a significant ruling that puts to rest a long-standing argument around merit and reservation, the Supreme Court has clearly said that candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes or Other Backward Classes cannot be forced out of the General or Open category simply because of their caste identity, if they have scored higher than the general cut-off on merit.

The court made it clear that performance, and not social category, must decide who gets considered in the General category. If a candidate from a reserved category scores above the general cut-off on their own merit, they have every right to be counted in the Open category. Denying them that opportunity only because they belong to a reserved group goes against the idea of equality.

At the same time, the Supreme Court laid down an important condition. It said that such consideration in the General category is possible only when the candidate has not used any special benefits meant for reservation. These benefits include age relaxation, extra attempts, lower qualifying marks, or any other concession provided under reservation rules. If no such benefit is taken, the candidate stands on the same footing as everyone else in the Open category.

Bench turns down Rajasthan High Court administration’s challenge

The judgment was delivered by a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih. The bench dismissed the appeal filed by the Rajasthan High Court administration and upheld the earlier decision of the Rajasthan High Court.

The High Court had ruled in favour of candidates who were stopped from moving ahead in the recruitment process even though they had scored well. The Supreme Court agreed with this view and reinforced the principle that the General or Open category does not belong to any single caste or community. It is open to all candidates who qualify purely on merit, irrespective of their background.

How the recruitment dispute began

The case arose from a large recruitment exercise announced by the Rajasthan High Court in August 2022. The recruitment was conducted under the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002 and the Rajasthan District Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986.

Through this process, 2,756 posts were to be filled. These included positions such as Junior Judicial Assistants and Clerks Grade-II across the Rajasthan High Court, district courts, and institutions like the Judicial Academy.

The selection process had two clear stages. The first was a written examination carrying 300 marks. The second stage was a computer-based typing test of 100 marks. According to the rules, candidates who scored above the minimum qualifying marks in the written exam were to be shortlisted for the typing test. However, the number of shortlisted candidates was capped at five times the number of vacancies in each category. The final selection was to be made based on the combined marks of both stages.

Problems began after the written exam results were declared in May 2023. While preparing category-wise shortlists for the typing test, authorities found that the general category cut-off was around 196 marks. In contrast, the cut-offs for several reserved categories such as Scheduled Castes, Other Backward Classes, Most Backward Classes and Economically Weaker Sections were much higher. In some cases, these cut-offs went beyond 230 marks.

Because of this, many reserved category candidates who had scored more than the general cut-off were still not shortlisted for the typing test. They failed to meet the higher cut-off fixed for their own category. At the same time, general category candidates with lower scores were allowed to appear for the next stage.

This situation triggered serious grievances. The affected candidates argued that they were being unfairly blocked despite having higher marks than several others who were allowed to move forward in the recruitment process.

Legal challenge before the Rajasthan High Court

The aggrieved candidates approached the Rajasthan High Court and argued that the method of shortlisting treated the General or Open category as if it were meant only for unreserved candidates. According to them, this approach violated their right to equality and equal opportunity guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

After examining the issue in detail, the High Court agreed with the candidates. It said that while category-wise shortlisting is not illegal in itself, the timing and manner in which it is applied are crucial.

The court ruled that if a reserved category candidate scores above the general cut-off without using any relaxation or concession, then that candidate must be considered in the General category at that stage. Denying such candidates an opportunity was held to be unconstitutional.

The Rajasthan High Court directed that the entire merit list be prepared again. It ordered the authorities to first draw up the General category list strictly on merit. This list, the court said, must include reserved category candidates who scored above the general cut-off, provided they had not taken any reservation-related benefits.

The court also ordered that candidates who were wrongly excluded from the typing test should be allowed to appear in it. At the same time, it clarified that it was neither abolishing reservation nor declaring category-based shortlisting as always wrong. The real issue was the early use of caste labels in a way that harmed candidates who had proven their merit.

Issues taken to the Supreme Court

The Rajasthan High Court administration was dissatisfied with this decision and moved the Supreme Court. It argued that the adjustment of reserved category candidates into the General category should happen only at the final stage of selection, and not during shortlisting for the second stage.

According to the administration, allowing such adjustment earlier would give candidates a “double benefit”. It also claimed that earlier court judgments on this issue applied only to final selection stages and not to intermediate stages like shortlisting.

Another argument raised was that candidates who participated in the recruitment process could not challenge it later, as they had accepted the rules by taking part.

Supreme Court dismisses the “double benefit” claim

The Supreme Court rejected all these arguments. While it acknowledged that candidates generally cannot challenge a selection process after participating in it, the court stressed that this principle is not absolute.

The bench pointed out that although the recruitment advertisement mentioned category-wise lists, it never stated that meritorious reserved category candidates would be barred from the General category. This meant that candidates were within their rights to challenge an unfair interpretation of the rules.

On the question of “double benefit”, the court took a firm stand. It clarified that merely mentioning a reserved category in the application form does not mean that a candidate has taken reservation benefits. It only gives the candidate an option to compete within their category if needed.

The court said the fear of “double benefit” was based on a misunderstanding. There is no rule that a reserved category candidate automatically enjoys reservation advantages at every stage of a multi-level recruitment process.

What the “open” category really means

One of the most important parts of the judgment was the court’s explanation of the word “open”. It said that open posts are not tied to any caste, class, tribe or gender. They are meant for any candidate who qualifies purely on merit.

The Supreme Court added that if a reserved category candidate, through hard work alone and without any concessions, scores higher than both reserved and general category candidates in a screening or preliminary exam, that candidate must be allowed to move to the next stage. In such situations, there is no question of migration from one category to another.

However, the court also clarified that this ruling applies specifically to this recruitment process. If recruitment rules clearly state a different method, those rules would take priority.

A practical caution from the Supreme Court

While upholding the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court also flagged a practical concern. It noted that in some cases, a reserved category candidate who appears in the General merit list may face limited choices later.

This can happen when certain posts or services are specifically reserved under quota rules. In such cases, being treated as a general category candidate may reduce the options available, even if the candidate performed better overall.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals but advised the Rajasthan High Court to ensure that employees who had already been appointed are not removed while implementing the order.

Why this judgment is important

This ruling has implications far beyond a single recruitment exam in Rajasthan. For years, social media discussions have been filled with claims that SC, ST or OBC cut-offs are higher than general cut-offs, often used to question the idea of merit.

The judgment clearly explains why such situations occur and why they are legally valid. The court stressed that the deciding factor is whether a candidate used any reservation-related benefits. If a reserved category candidate took age relaxation, extra attempts or physical concessions, then even a high score cannot place them in the General category. Such candidates must be counted within their own category.

Because many reserved category candidates do use these benefits, they are excluded from the general merit list even after scoring well. A larger pool of candidates using category-specific relaxations increases competition within reserved categories, which in turn pushes their cut-offs higher, sometimes even above the general cut-off.

In simple terms, the judgment reinforces that reservation is not about unfair advantage or punishment. It is about balance and inclusion while still respecting merit. A higher cut-off in reserved categories is not a failure of the system, but a sign that it is functioning as intended under the Constitution.