Reserved Candidate With Higher Merit Availing Only Fee Relaxation Must Be Migrated To General Category : Rajasthan High Court
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Farjand Ali held that a reserved category candidate who avails only fee concession and secures higher marks than the last selected candidate of the general category must be placed in the general merit list. The Court confirmed that the general category operates as an open merit pool in which any candidate, irrespective of community, may compete. Deciding a writ petition by an OBC women category aspirant for appointment as Junior Hydro Geologist, the Court found the selection process contrary to law for not shifting such a higher-merit candidate to the General Women category. It directed the authorities to treat the OBC women vacancy as available and to appoint the petitioner with consequential benefits, excluding back wages, within a specified period.
The petitioner, Kirti Chowdhary, applied pursuant to an advertisement dated 27.11.2014 issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for the post of Junior Hydro Geologist under the Rajasthan Ground Water Service Rules, 1969. A select list dated 18.01.2018 contained 13 recommended candidates, including Ms. Deepti Kalal, who was placed in the BC (Women) category with 61 marks. A reserve list issued the same day placed the petitioner at Serial No. 6, as the only candidate from the BC (Women) category. The notified cut-off for BC (Women) category was 61, and for General (Women) category it was 58; Ms. Shobha Rakhecha was selected in General (Women) with 58 marks. The petitioner secured 56 marks.
The petitioner contended that because Ms. Deepti Kalal secured higher marks than the general category woman candidate and had not availed any relaxation except fee concession, she was required to be migrated to the General (Women) category, thereby creating a vacancy in the BC (Women) category for the petitioner.
The respondents argued that Ms. Deepti Kalal had secured fewer marks than the general category cut-off in the screening test and therefore remained in the reserved category; they also submitted that no vacancy remained. The petitioner relied on Supreme Court decisions in Deepa E.V. and BSNL v. Sandeep Choudhary.
The Court recorded that the foundational facts are undisputed and that “only one post was available in the BC, WE category and the same came to be filled by Ms. Deepti Kalal, who secured 61 marks.” It further stated that “the cut-off marks for the General Women category were 58 and that the candidate selected therein, namely Ms. Shobha Rakhecha, secured marks lower than those secured by Ms. Deepti Kalal.” The Court framed the question as “whether a reserved category candidate, who has not availed of any relaxation except fee relaxation and who has secured higher marks than the last selected candidate of the General category, is mandatorily required to be migrated to the general category.”
The Court referred to Deepa E.V. v. Union of India and BSNL v. Sandeep Choudhary, observing that “a candidate belonging to a reserved category, who has not taken any benefit of reservation except fee concession and who secures marks higher than the cut-off of the General category, cannot be denied selection in the General category.” It stated that “merit migration is mandatory once the reserved category candidate secures marks higher than the General category cut-off and has not availed relaxations relating to age, qualification or other substantive criteria.”
The Court recorded that the respondents relied on a Government circular dated 26.07.2017, but “the said circular has neither been shown to contain any provision restricting merit migration nor can an executive circular override constitutional principles or binding precedent.” It further observed that “once the final merit position demonstrates that the BC, WE candidate secured higher marks (61) than the General Woman candidate (58), the respondents were duty-bound to place her in the General Woman category.”
Regarding vacancy, the Court noted that by order dated 09.02.2018, all appointments were made subject to the writ’s outcome, and “during the pendency of the writ petition, Ms. Deepti Kalal joined as Assistant Professor (Geology) in March 2023.” It recorded that “she has abandoned the post of Junior Hydro Geologist, rendering the BC, WE category post vacant.”
The Court also clarified that the migration “does not in any manner prejudice the rights of respondent No.3… The vacancy that has arisen in the BC, WE category is thus a consequential vacancy.” It stated that the petitioner, being the only BC (Women) candidate in the reserve list and next in merit, was entitled to consideration.
The Court declared that “the action of the respondents in treating Ms. Deepti Kalal as a candidate selected under the BC, WE category is declared illegal and contrary to the settled principles of law.” It directed that “the respondents are directed to treat the consequential vacancy in the OBC Woman category as available to be filled from the reserve list.”
“Since the petitioner is the only candidate in the BC, WE reserve list and is next in merit, the respondents shall accordingly consider and appoint the petitioner, Ms. Kirti Chowdhary, to the post of Junior Hydro Geologist in the BC, WE category.” It also directed that “the necessary formalities shall be completed within six weeks.”
“The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential benefits flowing from this order, except back wages” and that “her seniority shall be fixed with reference to the date on which her immediate junior in the selection list was appointed.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Lokesh Mathur
For the Respondents: Mr. Mahesh Thanvi, Ms. Pragya Thanvi, Mr. Kailash Jangid, Mr. L.K. Purohit
Case Title: Kirti Chowdhary v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JD:51773
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2105/2018
Bench: Justice Farjand Ali
