Rajasthan court staff hiring case: General category posts open to all candidates based on merit, says Supreme Court

“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/advertisement,” said the bench relying on the earlier verdicts of the Supreme Court.

It also underscored that treating the general category as a compartment exclusively meant for non-reserved candidates would violate the constitutional guarantee of equality under Articles 14 and 16.

Background

A recruitment process was initiated in August 2022 for 2,756 posts of junior judicial assistant/clerk grade-II in the Rajasthan High Court, district courts and allied institutions.

The selection process consisted of a written examination followed by a computer-based typewriting test.

While vacancies were distributed category-wise, the advertisement stipulated that candidates securing the prescribed minimum marks in the written test would be shortlisted- up to five times the number of vacancies for the second stage.

However, when the results were declared in May 2023, it emerged that the cut-off marks for several reserved categories such as Scheduled Castes (SC), Other Backward Caste (Non Creamy Layer), Most Backward Class (Non Creamy Layer) and Economically Weaker Section (EWS) were higher than the cut-off for the general category.

Several candidates belonging to reserved categories, who had scored more than the general category cut-off but less than the cut-off fixed for their respective reserved categories, were excluded from the list of candidates eligible to appear for the typewriting test.

Subsequently, they approached the high court, arguing that despite being more meritorious than many general category candidates, they were unfairly confined to their reserved categories.

Accepting their plea, the high court ruled that meritorious reserved category candidates must first be considered in the open/general category, provided they had not availed any special concession, and directed revision of the merit lists.

This order was challenged before the Supreme Court by the administration of the high court.

Argument

The counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the rule of adjusting a meritorious reserved category candidate in the general category is to be applied at the stage of final selection, when the final merit list is prepared, and not at the intermediate stage of shortlisting for the second stage of examination.

He also submitted that a candidate belonging to a reserved category cannot claim placement in the general category merely on the basis of marks obtained in the written examination, as the written test is only one stage of the selection process.

The final determination of merit must await the completion of all stages, including the typewriting test, which carries minimum qualifying marks separately assigned, he further submitted.

Opposing these submissions, the counsel for the candidates submitted that the illegality in the present selection process is visible from the cut-off marks for several reserved categories being higher than the cut-off marks for the general/open category.

He submitted that the Rajasthan High Court correctly applied the constitutional principle that a candidate belonging to a reserved category, who secures marks higher than the cut-off prescribed for the general/open category, is entitled to be considered against the general/open category.

Observations

The apex court observed that the very use of the terms “open”, “unreserved” or “general” signifies that such posts are not reserved for any caste, tribe, class or gender, and merit alone must govern entry into this category.

“The placement of a more meritorious reserved category candidate in the open category is not a facet of reservation, but a principle of equality founded on merit,” said the court.

It further added that excluding such candidates solely because of their social category would amount to impermissible discrimination.

On the issue of “double benefit”, the court observed that a reserved category candidate who qualifies for the open category on merit does not draw upon reservation benefits at that stage.

“The apprehension of a ‘double benefit’ is misconceived,” the bench said, pointing out that merit-based selection into open posts does not reduce the quota meant for reserved categories.

The court upheld the high court’s reasoning and rejected the argument that allowing reserved category candidates into the general category at the shortlisting stage would amount to granting them a “double benefit”.

The court emphasised that the open or general category is not a quota but a pool of vacancies available to all candidates, irrespective of social classification.

Clarifying the concept of “migration” of reserved category candidates, explaining that where a candidate belonging to a reserved category qualifies for an open post purely on merit without availing any relaxation or concession, there is no question of migration in the strict sense.

Such a candidate must be treated as a general category candidate at that stage, the court said.

“If we accept the proposition advanced by the appellants, it would not only have a detrimental impact on candidates from the disadvantaged sections but also erode the principles enshrined in the Constitution,” it said.

Outlining that the advertisement was a representation to the aspirants for public employment that category-wise lists would be prepared, the top court said there was no indication that meritorious reserved category candidates would not be treated as general/open category candidates even if they outscore the latter.

“The illegality lies in the action of the appellants in not treating the meritorious reserved category candidates as General/Open category candidates, despite noticing that the former had outperformed and outshone the latter,” said the bench.

Stating that the candidates “paid a price for their merit”, the Supreme Court rejected the contention that candidates who participated in the recruitment process were estopped from challenging it later.

It held that while participation may imply acceptance of the procedure, it does not bar a challenge to a process that violates constitutional principles.