INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court passed a significant judgment on January 6, 2026, explaining the constitutional meaning of the “general” or “unreserved” category in public employment. It explained that unreserved posts are open to all candidates purely on merit, regardless of social category, and that reserved category candidates cannot be excluded from consideration for open posts if they have secured marks above the general cut-off without getting any relaxation. The judgment reinforces the guarantees of equality under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution and warns against affirmative action becoming an exclusion device.
BACKGROUND
The ruling followed a recruitment drive, which was started in August 2022, for vacant posts in the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002, and the Rajasthan District Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986. A total of 2,756 vacancies of Junior Judicial Assistant and Clerk Grade II were advertised in Rajasthan High Court, along with district courts and the judicial academy. The selection process had a written test of 300 marks, followed by the shortlisting of candidates for the second stage, a typing test of 100 marks, calculated at five times the number of vacancies.
While declaring the results of the written examination in May 2023, the recruiting authority applied category-wise cut-offs for shortlisting candidates to the typing test. Though the cut-off for the general category was about 196 marks, for some reserved categories, the cut-offs were more than 220 marks. Consequently, many candidates falling within the reserved categories, scoring more than the general cut-off yet below their category cut-offs, were not shortlisted while general category candidates who scored less were allowed to proceed. This gave rise to constitutional challenges before the Rajasthan High Court.
KEY FINDINGS OF THE COURTS
The Rajasthan High Court held that the error was not in the reservation itself but in considering the general category as a closed compartment in the shortlisting process. It is pertinent to note that once a candidate crosses the general cut-off, all candidates are excluded on the mere grounds of social categories. This defeats the equality of opportunities guaranteed under Article 16(1) of the Constitution. The High Court of Rajasthan ordered that the general merit list should be generated, including all candidates who qualified on merit, followed by the generation of lists of reserved category candidates.
Following this, a Supreme Court Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and A. G. Masih maintained that the open category is not a quota reserved for non-reserved candidates. It clarified that reservation applies to earmarked posts alone and cannot justify exclusion from unreserved posts. The argument of “double benefit” was rejected as it held that reservation is availed only if concessions such as age relaxation or reduction in qualifying marks is utilised. A candidate who qualifies on open merit without availing of relaxation competes as a general category candidate by merit alone.
RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL SIGNIFICANCE
The Supreme Court considered the issue of migration of reserved-category candidates into the general category. It distinguished the earlier cases, which involved preliminary or screening tests, as the written test in this case represented a substantial part of the final selection. Exclusion at this critical stage shut off opportunity permanently and corrections at later stages were impossible. The Court thus characterized the process as not migration at all, but a merit-based shift where the candidate competes in the open category from the beginning, evaluated by performance.
Drawing from the landmark precedents in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, MANU/SC/0664/1992 and Saurav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, MANU/SC/0960/2020, the Court reiterated that treating the open category as exclusive would amount to unconstitutional compartmentalisation, or even a semblance of communal reservation. It is relevant that the Court warned that merit must not become a penalty where a candidate qualifying on open merit should not lose access to better options available within their reserved quota.
CONCLUSION
The judgment pronounced in the month of January 2026 represents the critical reiteration of constitutional equality in public employment. By establishing that the general category is an open arena where merit alone is the sole criterion, the Supreme Court has enabled a delicate balance between affirmative action and equal opportunity. This judgment ensures that reservation works as an instrument of inclusion rather than exclusion and cannot adversely affect meritorious candidates by rigid interpretations of procedural mechanisms. In so doing, the Court has brought recruitment closer to the constitutional ideal of fairness, dignity, and true equality of opportunity for all citizens.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: USIKA K
