Supreme Court on Rajasthan JJA Recruitment: "Reservation Functions as Inclusion, Not Disadvantage", Opens General Seats for SC/ST/OBC Merit Holders

New Delhi- In a significant verdict on reservation policy, the Supreme Court has upheld the Rajasthan High Court's order, granting reserved category candidates the right to compete in the general or open category if they secure marks exceeding the general cutoff in the written exam.

The decision dismisses appeals filed by the Rajasthan High Court administration and its Registrar, stemming from a dispute over the Junior Judicial Assistant/Clerk Grade-II recruitment process. Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih emphasized that merit-based equality cannot be overlooked, and reserved candidates, without availing any special relaxations, must be allowed to vie for open slots.

The case originated from a Rajasthan High Court, Jaipur Bench order dated September 18, 2023, disposing of D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7564/2023 and connected matters. Under the Rajasthan District Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986, and the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002, an advertisement was issued on August 5, 2022, inviting applications for 2,756 vacancies in Junior Judicial Assistant/Clerk Grade-II posts across the High Court, Rajasthan State Judicial Academy, District Courts, and allied institutions, including Legal Services Authorities and Permanent Lok Adalats. Vacancies were allocated category-wise for General, Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST), Other Backward Class (OBC), Most Backward Class (MBC), Economically Weaker Section (EWS), and horizontal reservations for other categories.

The selection process included a 300-mark written test followed by a 100-mark computer-based typing test, with qualifying marks set at 50% for General, 45% for OBC and others, and 40% for SC/ST/PwD. Only candidates securing the minimum, up to five times the vacancies category-wise, qualified for the typing test, with the final merit based on aggregate scores.

The written exam occurred on March 12 and 19, 2023, with results declared on May 1, 2023. Controversy arose when several reserved category candidates, scoring above the General cutoff of 196.3451 but below their category cutoffs, were excluded from the typing test. For instance, OBC-NCL cutoff was 230.4431, EWS at 224.5384, SC at 202.4398, and MBC-NCL at 203.3569—higher than General. This sidelined reserved candidates' merit, confining them to reserved slots only. Rajat Yadav and others filed writ petitions on May 10, 2023, seeking quashing of results and inclusion in the general list for the typing test.

The High Court, in its order, affirmed category-wise shortlisting but ruled that excluding meritorious reserved candidates from open slots violated Articles 14 and 16. It directed revising lists by first preparing the General/Open merit list, including eligible reserved candidates without special benefits, followed by reserved lists. Candidates provisionally allowed in the typing test would have aggregates recomputed, while others would get a fresh chance. If no vacancies remained, less meritorious appointees would yield to superiors.

The High Court observed, "Exclusion of a reserved category candidate, despite securing marks higher than the cut-off for General/Open category, solely on account of his category, would violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution." Referencing Chattar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1996) 11 SCC 742 and Dharamveer Tholia v. State of Rajasthan (2000) 3 WLC 399, it distinguished preliminary from main exam stages, holding migration applicable post-written test. Citing Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992 Supp (3) SCC 217) and R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab (1995) 2 SCC 745, it stressed, "A reserved category candidate who secures equal or higher merit cannot be denied equality of treatment merely on account of his caste or community." Saurav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) 4 SCC 542 reinforced that open category is merit-open to all, not rigid slots.

Appellants' counsel Nidhesh Gupta argued before the Supreme Court that migration benefits apply only at final merit preparation, not intermediate shortlisting, citing Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal (2017) 1 SCC 350, Pradeep Singh Dehal v. State of H.P. (2019) 9 SCC 276, and Saurav Yadav. He warned of double benefits and invoked estoppel, as candidates participated knowing the process.

Respondents' counsel Dr. K.S. Chauhan countered that treating open category as exclusive for generals equates to communal reservation, prohibited by the Constitution. Citing Saurav Yadav, he urged, "The open category is open to all solely on merit, and to confine candidates within quotas would negate merit." He highlighted the written test's 75% weightage, arguing exclusion undermines equality.

The Supreme Court rejected estoppel, stating, "The petitioning candidates could not have possibly visualised such an approach on the part of the recruiters... the plea of estoppel could not have defeated such a challenge." Dismissing double benefit fears, it clarified no relaxation was availed, and merit alone qualifies for open slots. Justice Datta noted, "The open category connotes nothing but ‘open’, meaning thereby that vacant posts... are open to all notwithstanding that a cross-section of society can also compete for appointment on vacant posts which are ‘reserved’."

Distinguishing Chattar Singh, the Court held the written test substantive (75% weight), not mere screening, making migration principles inapplicable there. It clarified 'migration' as merit-induced adjustment, not concession-based.

Upholding the High Court, the Supreme Court dismissed appeals, directing typing test opportunities, merit list rework, and minimal displacement of existing employees. Compliance time extended by two months. This ruling not only resolves the Rajasthan recruitment but sets a precedent balancing reservation with merit nationwide.