Merit Over Quota: Supreme Court Reaffirms Right of Reserved Candidates to Migrate to General Category

On March 23, 2026, the Supreme Court of India delivered a definitive judgment that clarifies a long-standing ambiguity in reservation and service law. A Bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice Alok Aradhe held that candidates from reserved categories who avail themselves of relaxations or concessions in a qualifying examination cannot be summarily barred from being considered for general category posts. The Court emphasized that if such a candidate secures higher merit in the final selection stage than the last selected general category candidate, they are entitled to be adjusted against an "open" seat, unless specific recruitment rules expressly forbid such migration.

The judgment, delivered in the case of Chaya & Ors. v. The State of Maharashtra, effectively sets aside a 2025 ruling by the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court. The High Court had previously held that availing any form of relaxation at the entry level permanently tethered a candidate to their reserved category, regardless of their final performance. The Supreme Court’s intervention restores the principle that the unreserved category is a "merit category" open to all, rather than a quota reserved exclusively for non-reserved applicants.

The Origins of the Dispute: Teacher Recruitment in Maharashtra

The legal battle originated from a massive teacher recruitment drive in Maharashtra, governed by the Right to Education (RTE) framework and managed through the "Pavitra" portal. To be eligible for appointment, candidates were required to pass the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET). Under the state’s guidelines, general category candidates required a minimum of 60% to qualify, while reserved category candidates (SC, ST, OBC, and VJ/NT) were granted a 5% relaxation, requiring only 55%.

Following the TET, eligible candidates appeared for the Teachers Aptitude and Intelligence Test (TAIT), which served as the main selection examination. A significant number of reserved category candidates who had qualified the TET using the 5% relaxation performed exceptionally well in the TAIT. Many of these individuals secured marks substantially higher than the cut-off scores for the general category.

However, the Commissioner of Education and the State Government excluded these candidates from the open merit list, arguing that because they had used a "concession" (the lower TET pass percentage), they were ineligible for general seats. The Bombay High Court upheld this exclusion, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

Eligibility vs. Merit: Decoding the Bench’s Reasoning

The Supreme Court’s analysis hinged on the distinction between "eligibility" and "merit." Justice Aradhe, authoring the judgment, observed that a concession in a qualifying examination like the TET merely enables a candidate to enter the "zone of consideration." It does not, in itself, lower the standard of merit required in the final competitive examination (the TAIT), where all candidates are evaluated on an equal footing.

The Bench noted:

"A concession/relaxation in a qualifying examination merely enables entry of a candidate into the zone of consideration and cannot be treated as relaxation in the standard prescribed for the final selection if such relaxation does not affect the inter se merit."

The Court clarified that since no relaxation was granted to the reserved category candidates in the TAIT itself, their performance was directly comparable to that of general category candidates. To deny them a seat in the open category despite their superior scores would be to penalize merit and violate the constitutional guarantees of equality under Articles 14 and 16.

The Deciding Factor: Silence of Recruitment Rules

A critical aspect of the ruling is its reliance on the specific "Recruitment Rules" of the employer. The Supreme Court established a clear protocol for reservation category migration:

• If the rules or the employment notification expressly prohibit migration for candidates who availed relaxation, then migration is not allowed.

• If the rules are silent or do not contain an express prohibition, migration based on merit must be permitted.

  
  

In the Maharashtra case, the Court scrutinized the Government Resolution dated February 13, 2013. The Bench found that these rules did not contain any embargo against meritorious reserved candidates moving to the open category. Consequently, the State’s action in barring them was found to be without legal basis. The Court distinguished this from recent 2025 and 2026 precedents involving the Union of India, where migration was denied specifically because the relevant service rules (such as those for the Indian Forest Service) contained an explicit prohibition.

Correcting the Misapplication of the 'Pradeep Kumar' Precedent

The Supreme Court also addressed the Bombay High Court's reliance on the 2019 Pradeep Kumar judgment. The High Court had used that case to justify the ban on migration, arguing that allowing it would confer a "double benefit." However, the apex court clarified that Pradeep Kumar dealt with a fundamentally different factual matrix where candidates lacked basic eligibility and did not possess valid reservation certificates for the specific territory (NCT Delhi).

The Bench reiterated that the "open" category is not a separate room with a locked door for reserved candidates; it is the common floor where the most meritorious, regardless of their background, are placed first. Only after the open merit list is exhausted should the reservation quotas be filled.

Impact on Public Employment and Educational Admissions

This judgment has immediate and far-reaching implications for thousands of candidates across India. By settling the ambiguity surrounding reservation category migration, the Supreme Court has:

• Protected Meritorious Candidates: It ensures that high-performing students and jobseekers from reserved backgrounds are not "trapped" in their quotas if their scores qualify them for general seats.

• Defined Policy for Recruiters: State and Central agencies must now ensure that their employment notifications are explicit if they intend to restrict migration; otherwise, the default constitutional principle of merit will prevail.

• Clarified Single Integrated Processes: The ruling distinguishes between qualifying tiers (like TET or Preliminary exams) and final merit-based tiers (like TAIT or Mains), ensuring that a level-playing field at the entry-level doesn't turn into a ceiling for excellence.

  
  

The Supreme Court concluded by directing the State of Maharashtra to revise its merit lists and include the appellants who secured marks higher than the last selected general category candidate. This order marks a significant win for the principle of substantive equality in the Indian legal ecosystem.