Quota can’t bar candidate from merit selection in unreserved category: SC

The judgment assumes wider significance in the evolving jurisprudence on reservations, reaffirming that principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16

The Supreme Court has ruled that the mere availability of reservation cannot operate as a bar against a reserved category candidate being considered for unreserved or open category posts, underscoring that even the most meritorious candidates from disadvantaged sections today face intense competition in an era of shrinking public employment.

By clarifying that merit cannot be subordinated to labels, the ruling reinforces the constitutional balance between affirmative action and open competition, and is likely to guide adjudication of disputes pertaining to recruitment processes across public services in the years ahead. (Representational image)

A bench of justices Dipankar Datta and AG Masih made it clear that excluding reserved category candidates from the general pool solely on account of their social category, despite their having secured marks higher than the general cut-off, will not only harm candidates from disadvantaged sections but also undermine the constitutional promise of equality.

“A reserved category candidate, however meritorious he or she might be, in present times has to face stiff competition from other equally meritorious candidates having regard to the dearth of jobs in our country,” noted the bench in a judgment released on December 27. The court said that it is often out of anxiety to secure employment that such candidates indicate their reserved status at the time of application, but that declaration cannot later be used to fence them off from consideration on pure merit.

“For all intents and purposes, the vacancies on posts which are notified/advertised as open or unreserved or general, as the terms suggest, are not reserved for any caste/tribe/class/gender and are, thus, open to all notwithstanding that a cross-section of society can also compete for appointment on vacant posts which are ‘reserved’-- vertical or horizontal, as mentioned in the notification or advertisement,” declared the bench.

The judgment pushes the doctrine of the ‘”own merit” candidate a step further, recognising that meritorious candidates from reserved categories cannot be shut out of open competition on artificial grounds of “double benefit” or because of not migrating to general category, and that all open, unreserved and general category posts remain equally accessible to them if they qualify purely on merit.

The judgment assumes wider significance in the evolving jurisprudence on reservations, reaffirming that principles of equality under Articles 14 and 16, as the court held cannot be “a sterile invocation of formal legal equality, but an assessment of the real-world consequences.”

It added, “The focus, therefore, must be on outcomes as much as on rules.”

By clarifying that merit cannot be subordinated to labels, the ruling reinforces the constitutional balance between affirmative action and open competition, and is likely to guide adjudication of disputes pertaining to recruitment processes across public services in the years ahead.

The ruling came while dismissing an appeal filed by the Rajasthan high court administration against a 2023 decision of the high court directing the redrawing of merit lists for recruitment to the posts of junior judicial assistant and clerk grade-II. The high court had found that reserved category candidates had been wrongly excluded from the open category despite securing marks above the general cut-off, solely because of their caste status -- an exclusion it held violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Affirming that view, the Supreme Court said that the high court had correctly intervened to rectify a situation where it had been found to be acting contrary to constitutional ideals. “We appreciate the proactive stance of the division bench of the high court while it rectified a situation where the high court itself was found to contravene constitutional ideals,” the bench said.

Rejecting the argument advanced by the high court administration that allowing such candidates to be counted in the open category would confer a “double benefit”, the court held that the premise itself was flawed. It explained that a reserved category candidate does not automatically avail reservation merely by declaring their category in the application form. Such a declaration only enables them to stake a claim for reserved vacancies based on inter se merit among similarly placed candidates.

“For a deserving reserved category candidate to be appointed on an unreserved vacant post, it is merit and merit alone that must determine suitability,” said the bench, adding that for open posts, the benchmark is inter se merit among all candidates, irrespective of caste, tribe, class, or gender.

The court emphasised that posts advertised as “open”, “general” or “unreserved” are not reserved for any category and are open to all candidates. If a reserved category candidate, without availing any concession or relaxation, secures marks higher than general category candidates at any stage of a multi-tier recruitment process, they must necessarily be treated as an open category candidate. In such cases, the court said, there is no question of “migration” from the reserved category, as merit alone governs the outcome.

Drawing on landmark judgments such as Indra Sawhney (1995) and Saurav Yadav (2021), the bench reiterated that reservation does not bar candidates from competing in the general category, and that those selected on merit against open posts cannot be counted towards reserved quotas. The court cautioned that treating open category posts as effectively closed to reserved candidates would erode substantive equality and distort the very purpose of affirmative action.

At the same time, the court entered a note of caution to ensure fairness within reserved categories. It observed that if counting a highly meritorious reserved candidate in the open category were to deprive them of a preferred service or post available within the reserved quota, thereby allowing a less meritorious candidate to occupy that slot, such a candidate must be permitted to be considered within the reserved category instead. This, the bench said, would ensure that reservation functions as a tool of inclusion rather than a source of disadvantage.

In the specific case before it, the court found that none of the candidates had availed any relaxation or concession, and no rule or executive instruction barred the high court from treating them as open category candidates once they had outperformed general category candidates. The apprehension of “double benefit”, it concluded, was misconceived and thus dismissed the high court’s appeal.