The Punjab and Haryana High Court has delivered a significant ruling on reservation policy, stating that candidates who have availed the benefit of reservation at any stage of the recruitment process cannot subsequently seek migration to the unreserved category. However, the court clarified that candidates who applied under a reserved category but did not avail any reservation benefit and secured marks above the cut-off prescribed for the unreserved category would be entitled to consideration against available general category vacancies.
The ruling came from a Division Bench comprising Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor while disposing of a batch of review applications arising from recruitment to 805 posts of Ayurvedic Medical Officers (Group B) in Haryana, advertised through an advertisement issued on June 21, 2024.
Key Observations by the High Court
The Bench observed: "Those candidates who have already availed the benefit of reservation at any stage of recruitment would not be entitled for the benefit of migration to unreserved category. However, those review applicants who though have applied in the reserved category, but have not taken any advantage of reservation and have secured marks above the cut off meant for unreserved category, would be accorded consideration in the unreserved category against available seats."
Background of the Case
The review applications were filed following a Division Bench judgment dated November 3, 2025, on a bunch of appeals. The review applicants contended that they were entitled to selection even if they were not entitled to the benefit of reservation, as they had secured marks higher than those obtained by the last selected candidate in the unreserved category. The court noted that the Special Leave Petition filed against the judgment was reported to have been dismissed.
Court's Directive for Verification
To examine the claim, the High Court on May 12 directed the Haryana Public Service Commission and other respondents to clarify whether any of the review applicants had secured any benefit on account of having applied under a reserved category. Pursuant to the directions, the State filed an affidavit stating that some of the applicants had availed benefits of reservation in the form of age relaxation and other concessions. Taking the affidavit on record, the Bench held that candidates who had secured such benefits could not claim migration to the unreserved category.
Notional Appointment and Actual Benefits
The Bench further directed that review applicants ultimately selected on the basis of their merit in the unreserved category would be accorded consideration for appointment notionally from the date persons junior to them had been appointed. However, actual benefits would be restricted from the date of actual appointment. The court directed that the necessary exercise be completed within three months.
This ruling sets an important precedent for recruitment processes across the state, ensuring that reservation benefits are not misused while protecting the rights of meritorious candidates who do not avail such benefits.
