Kiran Raj

The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih has dismissed appeals by the Rajasthan High Court administration and its Registrar, thereby affirming a September 18, 2023 Rajasthan High Court decision concerning recruitment to Junior Judicial Assistant/Clerk Grade-II posts. The dispute centred on shortlisting after the written test, where applicants from reserved categories who scored above the general/open cut-off were excluded from the typewriting-test shortlist because they were assessed only within their respective categories. Upholding the High Court’s directions, the Court held that such candidates must be considered in the open category on merit even at the shortlisting stage, and not confined to reserved-category lists, provided they have not taken any special concession.

The appeals arose from a recruitment process initiated pursuant to an advertisement dated 5 August 2022 issued for appointment to 2,756 posts of Junior Judicial Assistant/Clerk Grade-II in the Rajasthan High Court, Rajasthan State Judicial Academy, District Courts, and allied institutions. The selection process comprised a written examination of 300 marks followed by a computer-based typewriting test of 100 marks, with shortlisting for the second stage limited to five times the number of vacancies, category-wise.

Also Read: Bar Council Elections: Supreme Court Reduces Nomination Fee for Specially Abled Advocates, Directs BCI to Revise Rules to Secure Their Representation

Candidates belonging to various reserved categories participated in the written examination and secured marks higher than the cut-off prescribed for the General/Open category but lower than the cut-offs fixed for their respective reserved categories. Despite outperforming general category candidates, they were not included in the general list for shortlisting to the typewriting test and were confined to consideration only within their reserved categories.

Aggrieved, the candidates approached the Rajasthan High Court, contending that exclusion of meritorious reserved category candidates from the open category at the shortlisting stage violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The High Court allowed the writ petitions and directed reworking of merit lists by first preparing the General/Open category list on merit.

The Rajasthan High Court administration and its Registrar challenged this decision before the Supreme Court, asserting that migration of reserved category candidates could occur only at the final merit stage and not during intermediate shortlisting.

The Court stated: "Certainly, mere indication of one’s reserved category in the application form does not automatically qualify the candidate for appointment on a reserved vacant post but only enables him/her to stake a claim amongst all reserved candidates based on the inter se merit position." It added: "Equally, for a deserving reserved category candidate to be appointed on an unreserved vacant post, it is merit and merit alone that must determine suitability." The Court recorded: "In other words, for the unreserved vacant posts, the inter se merit among all the competing candidates serves as the benchmark for appointment in public service."

On the recruitment notice and the estoppel objection, the Court observed: "In the present case, the advertisement was a representation to the aspirants for public employment that category-wise lists would be prepared." It recorded: "There was, however, no indication that meritorious reserved category candidates would not be treated as General/Open category candidates even if they outscore the latter." The Court stated: "The illegality lies in the action of the appellants in not treating the meritorious reserved category candidates as General/Open category candidates, despite noticing that the former had outperformed and outshone the latter."

It added: "Since the petitioning candidates could not have possibly visualised such an approach on the part of the recruiters by projecting their own imagination and discover all facts and circumstances that might be in their contemplation to be adopted while drawing up the merit lists at the time they participated in the preliminary written examination, the question of such candidates being estopped from mounting a challenge to the legality of the process does not and cannot arise." The Court recorded: "The petitioning candidates paid a price for their merit and having challenged the very legality of the process alleging violation of constitutional norms and legal principles, the plea of estoppel could not have defeated such a challenge."

While noting the basis on which the Rajasthan High Court Division Bench proceeded, the judgment recorded: "The Division Bench drew support from the Constitution Bench decisions in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab to reiterate that a reserved category candidate who secures equal or higher merit cannot be denied equality of treatment merely on account of his caste or community."

On the meaning of “open” posts, the Court held: "Drawing inspiration from the guiding light provided by Indra Sawhney (supra) and Saurav Yadav (supra), 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."

It further stated: "One does find categories like ‘open’ or ‘unreserved’ or ‘general’ being widely used in course of recruitment drives but they are meant to signify the open/unreserved vacant posts on which any suitable candidate can be appointed, regardless of the caste/tribe/class/gender of such candidate." The Court added: "For all intents and purposes, the vacancies on posts which are notified/advertised as open or unreserved or general, as the terms suggest, are not reserved for any caste/tribe/class/gender and are, thus, open to all notwithstanding that a cross-section of society can also compete for appointment on vacant posts which are ‘reserved’ – vertical or horizontal – as mentioned in the notification/advertisement."

Also Read: Gujarat High Court Refuses To Condone Delay In Filing GST Appeal, Declines To Extend Statutory Time Limit Citing “Lame Excuses” Of Accountant’s Illness And Business Closure

Applying the governing approach to shortlisting and the second-tier test, the Court stated: "At the time of screening/short-listing of candidates based on their performance in the qualifying examination and even thereafter, initially all the aspiring candidates including the reserved candidates should be seen as General/Open candidates." It added: "If such a candidate, notwithstanding that he/she belongs to a reserved category maintains excellence in standard even in the second tier of examination (typewriting test, in this case), he/she would cease to be treated as a candidate belonging to any category and entitled to treatment as a candidate seeking appointment on a vacant post which is categorised as General/Open."

The Court directed that “the impugned order is upheld” and “the appeals fail and are dismissed. While considering the cases of the petitioning candidates, the High Court may endeavour not to dislodge employees in position, as expressed by the Division Bench, as far as possible. Time to comply with the impugned order is extended by two months from date,” and “parties shall, however, bear their own costs.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellants: Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukul Kumar, AOR Mr. Kartik Seth, Adv. Ms. Aditi Mishra, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Mr. K M Abish, Adv. Mr. Manan, Adv. M/s Chambers Of Kartik Seth, AOR

For the Respondents: Mr. Avinash Sharma, AOR Ms. Akanksha Kapoor, Adv. Mr. Jayender S Chandail, Adv. Mr. Jayender S. Chandail, Adv. Mr. Gaurav Kumar, Adv. Dr. K.S. Chauhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. P.S. Teji, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajit Kumar Ekka, AOR Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Adv. Mr. S. P. Singh, Adv. Mr. S.P. Singh, Adv. Mr. Ravi Prakash, Adv. Mr. R.s.m. Kalky, Adv. Mr. Ravi Shakar Singh, Adv. Mr. Ravi Shankar Singh, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Jain, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Malik, Adv. Mr. Satpal, Adv. Mr. Bhim Kishore, Adv. Mr. Ajit Kumar, Adv. Ms. Anu, Adv. Mr. Ajay Kumar Singh Yadav, Adv. Mr. Amit, AOR

Case Title: Rajasthan High Court & Anr. v. Rajat Yadav & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1503
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 14112 of 2024 with Civil Appeal Nos. 3957–4009 of 2025
Bench: Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Augustine George Masih