Reserved Candidates Above Cut Off To Be In General List | SC

Case Details: Rajasthan High Court vs. Rajat Yadav - [2025] 181 taxmann.com 906 (SC)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Dipankar Datta & Augustine George Masih, JJ.
• Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv., Kartik Seth, Ms. Shilpa Saini, Raghav Sharma, Shubhankar Singh, Lakshmi Kant Srivastava, K. M. Abish, Ashutosh Anand, Minesh Joshi, Advs. & Mukul Kumar, AOR for the Appellant.
• Dr. K. S. Chauhan, P. S. Teji, Sr. Advs., Ravi Prakash, Abhishek Chauhan, R.S.M. Kalky, Dr. R. K. Chauhan, S. P. Singh, Sunil Kumar, Ravi Shankar Singh, Ramesh Kumar, Ms. Aditi Chauhan, Nav Parkash Singh Teji, Himanshu Jain, Sandeep Malik, Ajit Kumar, Bhim Kishore, Ms. Prabjeet Sandhu, Satpal, Rishi Raj Maheshwari, Advs., Avinash Sharma, Ajit Kumar Ekka & Amit, AORs for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, respondents belonging to different reserved categories had secured marks in the written test in excess of the cut-off marks for General category candidates, but less than the cut-off marks for their respective reserved category.

Despite securing marks above the cut-off for General category candidates, respondents from different reserved categories were treated as aspirants eligible only to compete for reserved posts, not for ‘general’ posts; hence, they did not figure in the list of successful candidates eligible to take the typewriting test.

Respondents filed a writ petition before the High Court, praying that reserved category candidates who had secured marks greater than the cut-off marks prescribed for the General category be included in the general list and declared qualified for taking the typewriting test.

The High Court, by the impugned order, held that while preparing category-wise lists after the written examination, reserved category candidates who had secured marks higher than the cut-off for the general category were required to be included in the general category list. Thereafter, an appeal was made before the Supreme Court.

It was noted that at the time of screening/short-listing of candidates based on their performance in the qualifying examination and even thereafter, initially, all aspiring candidates, including reserved candidates, should be seen as General/Open candidates.

Supreme Court Held

The Supreme Court held that, if such a candidate, notwithstanding that he/she belongs to a reserved category, maintains excellence in standard even in the second tier of examination, 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. Thus, the question of any migration or deriving twin benefits of migration did not and could not arise.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Order of High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7564 of 2023, dated 18-09-2023 (para 76) affirmed
• Chattar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1996) 11 SCC 742 (para 73) distinguished

List of Cases Referred to

• Chattar Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1996) 11 SCC 742 (para 16)
• Dharamveer Tholia v. State of Rajasthan 2000 (3) WLC 399 (para 18)
• Janki Prasad Parimoo v. State of Jammu & Kashmir AIR 1973 SC 930 (para 20)
• Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 (para 22)
• R.K. Sabharwal v. State of Punjab (1995) 2 SCC 745 (para 22)
• Saurav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2021) 4 SCC 542 (para 23)
• U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Nitin Kumar 2015 SCC OnLine All 8611 (para 24)
• Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal (2017) 1 SCC 350 (para 33)
• Pradeep Singh Dehal v. State of H.P. (2019) 9 SCC 276 (para 33)
• Gaurav Pradhan v. State of Rajasthan (2018) 11 SCC 352 (para 33)
• Nirav Kumar Dilipbhai Makwana v. Gujrat Public Service Commission (2019) 7 SCC 383 (para 33)
• Govt. of NCT Delhi v. Pradeep Kumar (2019) 10 SCC 120 (para 33)
• Sadhana Singh Dangi v. Pinki Asati (2022) 12 SCC 401 (para 33)
• Ramnaresh @ Rinku Kushwah v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2058 (para 33)
• Alok Kumar Pandit v. State of Assam [2013] 11 taxmann.com 697 (SC) (para 33)
• G. Sarana v. University of Lucknow (1976) 3 SCC 585 (para 42)
• Om Prakash Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla 1986 Supp SCC 285 (para 42)
• Madan Lal v. State of Jammu & Kashmir (1995) 3 SCC 486 (para 42)
• K.A. Nagamani v. Indian Airlines 2009 taxmann.com 1326 (SC) (para 42)
• Manish Kumar Shahi v. State of Bihar (2010) 12 SCC 576 (para 42)
• Ramesh Chandra Shah v. Anil Joshi [2013] 4 taxmann.com 1295 (SC) (para 42)
• Ramjit Singh Kardam v. Sanjeev Kumar (2020) 20 SC 209 (para 42)
• Meeta Sahai v. State of Bihar (2019) 20 SCC 17 (para 43)
• Raj Kumar v. Shakti Raj (1997) 9 SCC 527 (para 44)
• Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC 119 (para 54)
• Deepa E.V. v. Union of India (2017) 12 SCC 680 (para 55)
• Action Committee v. Union of India (1994) 5 SCC 244 (para 65)
• Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Sanjay Kumar Singh (2003) 7 SCC 657 (para 65)
• Mukul Biswas v. State of West Bengal 2010 SCC OnLine Cal 1983 (para 74).