Back
Rules SLST Aspirant Cannot Switch From General to EWS Category After Cut-Off
In a significant ruling on recruitment fairness, the has held that an aspirant who applied under the general category for the Second SLST, 2025 cannot later convert to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category after missing the cut-off date prescribed by the . Justice Aniruddha Roy dismissed a writ petition seeking such a conversion, emphasizing that altering the “” mid-process would violate constitutional equality guarantees.
The Case Background
Falguni Maity, an aspirant for the Second SLST, 2025, originally intended to apply under the EWS category but did not possess a valid EWS certificate at the time of application. Consequently, she applied as a general category candidate. After the application window closed, she obtained an EWS certificate and sought to switch her candidature. The had earlier provided a cut-off date for candidates to change categories, but Maity had not availed that window since she still lacked the certificate during that period.
Arguments Presented
The petitioner, represented by , relied on a communication from the Joint Commissioner for Reservation and Special Secretary and a prior coordinate bench order in to argue that conversion should be permitted.
The , through Senior Advocate , opposed this plea, contending that allowing late-stage category changes would disrupt the integrity of the selection process. They noted that the Commission had already offered a conversion opportunity, which the petitioner failed to utilize due to her ineligibility at that time.
Legal Analysis
The Court scrutinized the timeline: Maity did not have an EWS certificate when she applied, nor did she apply for conversion within the prescribed cut-off date. The Commission’s rules were well-defined and not under challenge. Justice Roy observed that altering these rules for an individual candidate would violate the under .
Permitting conversion, the Court reasoned, would encroach upon the vacancies reserved for EWS candidates, who had legitimate expectations of competing within a designated zone. Those who applied under the general category were “unequals” to EWS candidates within that zone, and allowing a switcher would disrupt parity.
Key Observations from the Judgment
The Court underscored the irreversibility of the recruitment framework: “When there is a codified well-defined for the selection process without any challenge being thrown thereto, such cannot be permitted to be altered or changed.”
It further warned that “if such participation on conversion is allowed, it will encroach the room/space earmarked for the EWS category, which will again violate the .”
Summing up the constitutional principle, Justice Roy stated: “In a recruitment process .”
Court’s Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition with no order as to costs, holding that the petitioner had no right to switch categories after having participated as a general candidate. The Court distinguished the earlier Sonali Paul decision, noting that in that case, the petitioners possessed valid EWS certificates within the cut-off date—a critical fact absent here.
This ruling reinforces the sanctity of recruitment timelines and the strict adherence to eligibility criteria, affirming that flexibility cannot come at the cost of equal opportunity for all qualified candidates.
