OBC Candidates Who Used Reservation To Clear First Stage Cannot Later Shift To Unreserved Category; Madhya Pradesh High Court
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Madhya Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Deepak Khot dismissed petitions challenging the Police Constable Recruitment Test-2023 results, holding that a candidate who secured entry to the second stage by using OBC reservation standards cannot later seek to be treated as unreserved at the final stage after failing to meet the OBC cut-off. The dispute arose after a woman applicant, who applied under the OBC category and qualified the written examination on the OBC threshold, participated in the physical test but did not reach the final OBC selection benchmark. She then sought consideration in the unreserved category on the basis of her combined score. The Court declined to direct her selection or category change at the second stage.
The writ petitions were filed by candidates belonging to Other Backward Class and Economically Weaker Sections who participated in the Police Constable Recruitment Test-2023 conducted by the State authorities. The petitioners applied under their respective reserved categories and appeared in the written examination, followed by the physical proficiency test. The recruitment process was structured in two phases, with eligibility for the second phase dependent upon securing category-wise cut-off marks in the written examination as prescribed in the Rule Book of Recruitment Test-2023.
The petitioners secured marks above the reserved category cut-off in the written examination and were consequently permitted to participate in the physical proficiency test. Upon aggregation of marks from both phases, their total scores exceeded the final cut-off prescribed for the unreserved category but fell short of the reserved category cut-off. The petitioners contended that, based on aggregate merit, they were entitled to be treated as unreserved candidates and appointed accordingly. Reliance was placed on judicial precedents dealing with migration of reserved category candidates to unreserved seats.
The State opposed the petitions, asserting that the petitioners had availed reservation benefits at the first stage and that the recruitment rules expressly barred migration to the unreserved category after such relaxation. The dispute thus centered on whether candidates who qualified for the second phase by availing reserved category relaxation could subsequently seek consideration under the unreserved category based on total marks.
The Court examined the recruitment framework and noted that the selection process was expressly designed as phase-wise. It observed that “the candidate has to first clear the first test and then he or she can appear in the second Physical Proficiency Test” and that this filtering mechanism was prescribed by the Rule Book itself.
While referring to the marks obtained by the petitioner, the Court recorded that “the petitioner was not qualified to reach in the second phase of examination, if she had been considered in the unreserved category” as her written examination score was below the unreserved cut-off. It further observed that “as the petitioner has applied under the OBC category, she has been granted the benefit of OBC category wherein the cut off marks for the first phase has been declared as 75.54 while the petitioner has obtained 77.68”.
The Court addressed the reliance placed on precedents concerning migration to unreserved categories and stated that “the facts of the cases cited by the petitioner are distinguishable and not applicable in the case in hand”. It recorded that the petitioners’ eligibility to participate in the second phase arose solely due to reservation benefits, noting that “because of the said benefit only, the petitioner could succeed to face second phase of the examination”.
Referring to the relevant rule, the Court reproduced Clause (xi) of Rule 14 and observed that it mandated that candidates who availed relaxation could be counted only within their reserved category. It further stated that “there is no question of taking into consideration the total marks for the selection by applying the principle of adjusting the reserved category candidate against the unreserved category candidate”.
The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Sajib Roy and observed that “if an embargo is imposed under relevant recruitment rules, such reserved candidates shall not be permitted to migrate to general category”. It recorded that such an embargo was clearly created by the applicable rules governing the recruitment process.
The Court directed “the petitioner has obtained the benefit/reservation of the OBC category in the first phase to compete in the second phase” and that “the petitioner cannot seek for migration in the unreserved category by adding the total marks of both the phases. All the aforesaid petitions sans merit and are hereby dismissed”.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Shri Dinesh Singh Chauhan, Advocate
For the Respondents: Shri Anshuman Swamy, Government Advocate for the State; Shri Siddhartha Sharma, Advocate; Shri Sudeep Chatterjee, Advocate.
Case Title: Sana Khan v State of Madhya Pradesh & Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: MPHC-JBP:65599
Case Number: Writ Petition Nos. 12783 of 2025 with connected matters
Bench: Justice Deepak Khot
