Reserved Category Candidates Open Merit Eligibility: Supreme Court Clarifies Law in Chaya v State of Maharashtra

Case Summary

• Case Name: Chaya & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.; Civil Appeal Nos. of 2026 (SLP (C) Nos. 14517 - 14539 of 2025)

• Citation: 2026 INSC 277; Judgment delivered 23 March 2026

• Bench: Honourable Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha; Honourable Justice Alok Aradhe

• Statutes / Instruments: Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (Section 23); NCTE Guidelines (2011); Maharashtra Government Resolutions (2013-2019)

• Key Precedents: Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. (2010); Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal (2017); Government of NCT of Delhi v. Pradeep Kumar (2019)

Judicial Reiteration of Reservation Principles

The Supreme Court’s decision in Chaya & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra is a significant reiteration of established principles governing reservation, relaxations in qualifying tests and the interplay between eligibility and inter se merit. The Bench, through Honourable Justice Alok Aradhe, quashed the High Court’s dismissal and ordered inclusion of reserved-category candidates in the open merit list where they had obtained higher marks in the main selection examination (TAIT-2022), notwithstanding having availed of relaxation in the qualifying examination (TET). The judgment is particularly instructive for administrators, counsel and adjudicators dealing with teacher recruitments and other government selection processes that combine qualifying tests with subsequent merit-based selection.

The Conflict Between Relaxation and Merit

The narrow but practically recurring question was whether a candidate belonging to a reserved category who qualified the qualifying examination (TET) by availing relaxed pass marks is precluded from being treated as an open-category (general) candidate on the basis of superior merit in the main selection test (TAIT), where no express bar exists in the recruitment rules or notification.

The Regulatory Framework for Teacher Recruitment

The statutory background is framed by Section 23 of the RTE Act, 2009 and the NCTE Guidelines of 11 February 2011. Clause 9 of the NCTE Guidelines prescribes that a TET score of 60% constitutes a pass but permits State authorities and school managements to give concessions to SC/ST/OBC and PwD candidates. Maharashtra issued successive Government Resolutions establishing a recruitment modality wherein TET is a qualifying condition and the TAIT score determines the merit list. Maharashtra’s resolutions explicitly provided for a 5% relaxation in TET pass marks for specified reserved categories (reducing the threshold to 55%). The MSCE conducted TAIT-2022 and published a merit list excluding certain reserved-category candidates from the open list despite their securing higher TAIT marks than the last selected general category candidate; administrative communications relied upon Pradeep Kumar and other circulars to justify exclusion.

Distinguishing Eligibility Relaxation from Selection Concessions

The Supreme Court’s analysis rests on two complementary pillars: (i) the distinction between relaxation that affects mere eligibility and concessions that impact the selection process, and (ii) the primacy of recruitment rules and notifications insofar as they either allow or prohibit migration from reserved to open categories.

The Court reiterated established propositions: a relaxation in a qualifying examination that merely enables a candidate to enter the zone of consideration does not ipso facto constitute a concession in the recruitment process; inter se merit is decided by performance in the main selection examination and interviews. As the Court observed, relaxation in qualifying criteria only affects eligibility and not merit — a concise encapsulation of the governing principle. The NCTE text itself was relied upon: qualifying the TET would not confer a right on any person for recruitment/employment as it is only one of the eligibility criteria for appointment.

Importantly, the Court distinguished Pradeep Kumar. In Pradeep Kumar the candidates lacked essential eligibility (for example, applicable OBC certification and the required CTET score as mandated for that selection). The present appeals, by contrast, involved candidates who satisfied the relevant eligibility as relaxed by statute and government resolution; the relaxation was expressly permitted by the NCTE and Maharashtra Resolutions and therefore served only to bring candidates into the competitive field. Absent an express prohibition in the recruitment rules or notification against migration, exclusion from the open merit list could not be sanctioned.

The Court therefore applied the doctrine in Jitendra Kumar Singh and Vikas Sankhala which permit migrants from reserved categories to be counted against unreserved vacancies where the selection rules do not preclude such adjustment and where the relaxation concerned only eligibility and not merit allocation. The Court further held that administrative reliance on out-of-context memoranda and prior decisions (including an Office Memorandum directed to central government recruitments) was misplaced.

Notable Observations from the Bench

• "Relaxation in qualifying criteria only affects eligibility and not merit."

• The judgment reproduces the earlier wisdom: concessions in eligibility "merely enable their entry into the zone of consideration" and thereafter merit must be determined on equal terms.

Practical Guidelines for Administration and Legal Practice

1. Drafting of recruitment rules: The judgment underscores the necessity for clear, express drafting in recruitment rules and notifications. If an employer intends to preclude migration from reserved to general category despite relaxations granted for eligibility, the rule must say so in explicit terms. Absent such express language, administrative practice favouring exclusion is vulnerable to challenge.

2. Role of qualifying tests: Where a qualifying test is statutorily permitted to be relaxed, administering authorities should treat that relaxation as facilitating participation rather than as a continuing concession in the main merit calculus unless the rulebook prescribes otherwise. This is particularly relevant where the qualifying test carries a specified weightage in the final merit formula.

3. Litigation strategy: For claimants, the judgment provides a durable line of attack where (a) the recruitment notification is silent on migration and (b) the candidate has satisfied eligibility (including permitted relaxations) and superior merit in the main selection. For respondents, the safe defence remains express rule-based prohibition or demonstrable linkage between the relaxation and final selection criteria that gives rise to a concession in the selection proper.

4. Administrative communications: Authorities must take care before adopting jurisprudence from other factual matrices. Reliance on decisions such as Pradeep Kumar must be fact-sensitive; blanket application without attention to the underlying eligibility requirements may be susceptible to reversal.

Balancing Affirmative Action and Merit Integrity

The Court’s conclusion is conservative in form but progressive in effect: it preserves the balancing objective of affirmative action—ensuring disadvantaged candidates can enter the competitive field—while respecting the integrity of merit-based selection. The decision appropriately reconciles the twin goals of reservation policy: to level the playing field at the threshold and to maintain equality in the selection proper.

Concluding Remarks

Chaya & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra reaffirms settled law that relaxations in qualifying conditions—where statutorily permissible—operate to enable participation and do not ipso facto preclude consideration for open-category vacancies unless the recruitment rules expressly provide to the contrary. For practitioners advising public authorities or representing candidates, the judgment emphasises meticulous attention to the recruitment rulebook, transparent administrative practice, and a fact-specific approach when invoking precedents such as Pradeep Kumar. The decision will therefore have immediate and practical effect on teacher recruitments and any selection process where a qualifying examination with relaxations precedes a separate merit-based evaluation.

FAQs

Q1. Can a reserved-category candidate be moved to the open merit list if they scored higher marks than general-category candidates?

Yes. The Supreme Court reaffirmed that if a candidate from a reserved category (such as SC, ST, or OBC) secures higher marks in the main selection test (TAIT) than the last selected candidate in the general category, they must be included in the open merit list. This "migration" is a standard principle of reservation policy, ensuring that the most meritorious candidates are recognized regardless of their category, unless the specific recruitment rules expressly prohibit such a move.

Q2. Does using a "relaxed" passing score in a qualifying exam (TET) disqualify a candidate from the open-category list?

No. The Court made a crucial distinction between "eligibility" and "merit." A 5% relaxation in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) only serves to bring a candidate into the "zone of consideration"—it makes them eligible to compete. It does not count as a concession in the actual selection process. Since the final merit is determined by a separate test (TAIT), the initial relaxation in the qualifying exam does not stop a candidate from being treated as a general-category candidate if their final scores are high enough.

Q3. When is a reserved-category candidate barred from moving into the open/general merit list?

A candidate is generally only barred from migrating to the open list if the specific recruitment rules or the official job notification contain an express prohibition against it. Additionally, if the candidate avails of a concession that directly affects the final merit ranking (rather than just the threshold eligibility), they might be restricted to their reserved category. In this case, since the rules were silent and the relaxation only concerned eligibility, the exclusion by the State was found to be unlawful.

Q4. How does this judgment differ from the Pradeep Kumar case often cited by government authorities?

In the Pradeep Kumar case, the candidates were excluded because they lacked essential eligibility at the time of the application (such as not having the required certification or scores mandated for that specific selection). In the Chaya case, the candidates were fully eligible because the law and government resolutions specifically allowed for the 5% relaxation in the qualifying exam. The Supreme Court noted that authorities often misapply legal precedents without looking at the specific factual differences in eligibility requirements.