The Supreme Court has affirmed that candidates from Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC), and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) are entitled to be appointed to general category posts if they secure the cutoff marks prescribed for the general category. The ruling clarifies that unreserved posts are open to all candidates, irrespective of caste or category. This landmark judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine G. Masih, reinforces the importance of merit in public employment.
The case originated from a recruitment process initiated by the Rajasthan High Court in 2022 for 2,756 vacancies for Junior Judicial Assistant/Clerk Grade-II. The selection process involved a written test of 300 marks and a typewriting test on computer of 100 marks. A peculiar situation arose where the cutoff marks for several reserved categories (SC, OBC-NCL, EWS, etc.) were significantly higher than the cutoff for the General category. For instance, the cutoff marks were: General: 196.3451, Scheduled Caste: 202.4398, OBC-NCL: 230.4431, and EWS: 224.5384. Consequently, many reserved category candidates who scored more than the general cutoff but less than their own category's cutoff were excluded.
The Rajasthan High Court argued that allowing reserved category candidates to be appointed to general category posts based on merit would amount to granting them a "double benefit". However, the Supreme Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that merit must be respected. Justice Datta, writing the judgment, stated that the word "open" connotes nothing but "open," meaning that vacant posts which are earmarked as 'open' do not fall into any category. The Supreme Court drew inspiration from the 1992 Indra Sawhney case, which upheld 27% reservation for OBCs in government jobs. The court clarified that the availability of reservation does not bar a reserved category candidate from being considered on merit against the unreserved category.
The Supreme Court referenced previous judgments, including Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and Saurav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, to emphasize that terms like "open," "unreserved," and "general" denote posts not earmarked for reservation, not to restrict competition to general category candidates alone. The court found no rule, law, or executive instruction that prevented the Rajasthan High Court from treating reserved category candidates as General/Open candidates once they surpassed others on merit. The Supreme Court dismissed appeals filed by the Rajasthan High Court administration and upheld the High Court's order, reaffirming that open category vacancies are open to all candidates on merit. The bench concluded that accepting the argument against it would harm candidates from disadvantaged sections and erode constitutional principles.
This ruling brings clarity to long-standing debates on reservation and merit in public employment. It ensures that reservation functions as a means of inclusion rather than an instrument of disadvantage. The Supreme Court's decision reinforces the principle that merit should be the primary criterion for selection in government jobs, regardless of caste or category.
