Can Reserved Category Candidates Migrate to Open Category Based on Merit? Supreme Court Says Yes
Chaya & Ors. vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Etc.
Listen to this judgment
• 4 min readKey Takeaways
• A court cannot deny migration to the open category for reserved candidates merely because they availed relaxation in qualifying exams.
• Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act mandates minimum qualifications for teacher appointments.
• Relaxation in qualifying exams is intended to create a level playing field, not to penalize merit.
• Candidates who secure higher marks than the last selected general category candidate are entitled to be considered for the open category.
• Recruitment rules govern the eligibility and migration of candidates from reserved to open categories.
Introduction
The Supreme Court of India recently addressed a significant issue regarding the eligibility of reserved category candidates to migrate to the open category based on merit. This ruling has implications for the recruitment process of teachers in Maharashtra, particularly concerning the Teachers Aptitude and Intelligence Test (TAIT). The Court's decision clarifies the legal principles surrounding the migration of candidates who have availed of relaxation in qualifying examinations.
Case Background
The case arose from a common judgment delivered by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, which dismissed writ petitions filed by appellants belonging to reserved categories. The appellants challenged the merit list prepared by the Maharashtra State Council for Education (MSCE) for the recruitment of teachers, arguing that they were excluded despite being more meritorious than the last selected general category candidate. The High Court ruled that the appellants could not migrate to the open category because they had availed of relaxation in the qualifying marks for the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET).
What The Lower Authorities Held
The High Court held that passing the TET was a mandatory prerequisite for appointment as a teacher and that the relaxation granted in TET could not be ignored when determining eligibility for the open category. The Court relied on previous judgments, asserting that allowing migration would confer an unfair advantage over general category candidates. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed, prompting the appellants to appeal to the Supreme Court.
The Court's Reasoning
The Supreme Court examined the arguments presented by both parties. The appellants contended that relaxation in a qualifying examination should not bar migration to the open category if they performed better in the main selection examination. They argued that the open category is a merit category, not a quota reserved for general candidates. Conversely, the respondents maintained that the recruitment process adhered strictly to applicable government resolutions and that TET was a mandatory eligibility requirement.
The Court emphasized that relaxation in qualifying examinations merely enables candidates to enter the zone of consideration and does not equate to a relaxation in the standards for the main examination. The Court referred to previous judgments, including Jitendra Kumar Singh and Vikas Sankhala, which established that concessions granted in qualifying examinations do not affect the merit determination based solely on performance in the main examination.
Statutory Interpretation
The Court interpreted Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, which mandates minimum qualifications for teacher appointments. The National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) guidelines permitted relaxation in qualifying marks for reserved category candidates, thereby creating a level playing field. The Court noted that the recruitment process must be based on the marks obtained in the TAIT, and the inter se merit of candidates should be evaluated without any further concessions.
Constitutional or Policy Context
The ruling aligns with the constitutional provisions aimed at ensuring equality of opportunity in public employment, particularly Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Court recognized that while reservations are necessary to uplift socially and educationally backward classes, they should not undermine merit-based selection processes.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is significant as it clarifies the legal principles governing the migration of reserved category candidates to the open category based on merit. It reinforces the notion that relaxation in qualifying examinations should not penalize candidates who perform better in subsequent selection processes. The ruling also emphasizes the importance of adhering to recruitment rules and ensuring that merit is the primary criterion for selection.
Final Outcome
The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's judgment and directed the respondents to include the appellants in the merit list, as they had secured marks higher than the last selected candidate in the general category. The Court's decision underscores the importance of merit in the recruitment process and the need for fair consideration of all candidates, regardless of their category.
Case Details
- Case Title: Chaya & Ors. vs The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Etc.
- Citation: 2026 INSC 277
- Court: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
- Bench: Justice Alok Aradhe, Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha
- Date of Judgment: 2026-03-23
