In a significant verdict that clarifies the interplay between merit and reservation, the Supreme Court of India has ruled that candidates from Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Other Backward Classes (OBC), and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) are fully entitled to be appointed to general category posts if they meet the required cutoff marks.
Bench Draws from Indra Sawhney Precedent
The ruling was delivered by a bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine G Masih. The judges drew inspiration from the Supreme Court's landmark 1992 verdict in the Indra Sawhney case, which originally granted 27% reservation to OBCs in government jobs. This latest judgment reinforces the principle that reservation policies are designed for inclusion, not to restrict meritorious candidates from competing in the open category.
Dismissing the "Double Benefit" Argument
The case reached the apex court after the Rajasthan High Court, during a recruitment process, had barred reserved category candidates from being appointed against general category posts, even if they scored higher than the general category cutoff. The High Court had argued that allowing such appointments would amount to granting a "double benefit".
When a division bench of the Rajasthan HC ruled in favor of the reserved category candidates, the High Court administration appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court bench firmly dismissed this petition and upheld the division bench's decision.
"Open" Means Open: Interpreting the Rules
Writing the judgment, Justice Dipankar Datta provided a clear interpretation. "We hold that the word 'open' connotes nothing but 'open', meaning thereby that vacant posts which are sought to be filled by earmarking it as 'open' do not fall in any category," he stated.
The court emphatically declared, "The availability of reservation doesn't operate as a bar for a reserved category candidate from being considered on merit against the unreserved category."
Implications for Recruitment Processes
The recruitment process in question involved a written test followed by an interview. The Supreme Court outlined the practical application of its ruling:
- If a reserved category candidate scores more than the cutoff prescribed for the general category in the written test, they must be considered as part of the general category pool for the interview stage.
- If their cumulative marks (written test + interview) ultimately fall short of the final general category cutoff, they would then be considered under the reserved category quota to which they belong.
This structured approach ensures that merit is the primary criterion for open category selection, while the safety net of reservation remains available if the candidate does not make the final general category merit list.
The judgment is expected to have far-reaching consequences for recruitment drives across state and central government departments, public sector undertakings, and potentially educational institutions. It reinforces the constitutional vision of creating a level playing field where reservation and merit-based advancement are not mutually exclusive.
