Reserved Candidate Selected On Open Merit Can Claim Better Reserved-Category Post Than Reserved Candidate Having Lower Marks: Supreme Court

Update: 2026-08-22 06:57 GMT

Click the Play button to listen to article

The Supreme Court recently observed that a candidate belonging to a reserved category, who is otherwise eligible and has been selected in the open category on merit, is entitled to a better post under the reserved category than a reserved-category candidate who has secured lower marks.

The bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B Varale said the legal position was settled and had been reiterated in several judgments, the latest being the Constitution Bench judgment in Union of India v. Ramesh Ram, (2010) 7 SCC 234.

“On the main issue, law is quite settled and has been reiterated by this Court in several judgments with the last one being that of a larger Bench in Union of India vs. Ramesh Ram and Ors. reported in (2010) 7 SCC 234. In such view of the matter, there is no difficulty in holding that a person who is otherwise eligible under the reserved category and has been fitted into the open category, is entitled to a better post under the reserved category as against a person who has secured lesser marks than him in the reserved category,” the Court said.

The observation came while hearing a batch of petitions arising from a judgment of the Jharkhand High Court concerning the allocation of services to reserved-category candidates who were selected on open merit in the 6th Combined Civil Services Examination conducted by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC).

The High Court upheld the decision of a Single Judge who had refused to direct the State and JPSC to allocate Jharkhand Administrative Service to the petitioners. The petitioners had argued that although they had secured higher marks and were selected in the open category, they were allotted other services, while reserved-category candidates who had secured fewer marks were allotted Jharkhand Administrative Service.

The four petitioners before the High Court were Chandan, Sanjay Kumar Mahto, Gautam Kumar and Kumar Avinash. Chandan, a Scheduled Caste candidate, secured 611 marks out of 1150 and was allotted Jharkhand Information Service. Sanjay Kumar Mahto, an EBC-I candidate, secured 621 marks and was allotted Jharkhand Finance Service. Gautam Kumar, an EBC candidate, secured 619 marks and was allotted Jharkhand Finance Service. Kumar Avinash, a Scheduled Caste candidate, secured 606 marks and was allotted Jharkhand Planning Service. None was allotted Jharkhand Administrative Service.

The last selected candidate in the open category for Jharkhand Administrative Service had secured 631 marks. The corresponding cut-offs for Police, Finance, Education, Cooperative, Social Security, Information and Planning Services were 679, 614, 614, 613, 613, 611 and 600 respectively.

The dispute arose from Clause 8 of the advertisement, which was based on a State Government policy under which a reserved-category candidate securing marks at par with an open-category candidate was to be treated as an open-category candidate if the candidate had not been selected under the reserved category by availing any relaxation.

The petitioners, however, argued that treating them as open-category candidates had placed them at a disadvantage because reserved-category candidates who had secured fewer marks had obtained Jharkhand Administrative Service.

The High Court, however, noted that the petitioners had secured marks at par with the last selected open-category candidates in the respective services and possessed the requisite educational qualifications. It therefore held that their treatment as open-category candidates and allocation of services on that basis was in accordance with Clause 8.

The Supreme Court, while hearing the appeals, noted that the respondents had contended that the respondents that the petitioners had in fact availed a relaxation. The Court said it found no material to substantiate this claim.

The Court has granted the State and JPSC six weeks to file an affidavit on the issue of whether the petitioners had availed any relaxation.

The Court has also identified an incidental issue concerning the position of unreserved candidates if a reserved-category candidate who had migrated to the unreserved category is subsequently sent back to a reserved post of the candidate's choice.