1. Recruitment for secondary school teachers — Dispute over appointment of reserved category candidates to unreserved posts in violation of advertisement conditions. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1306
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA AND K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
State Of Odisha And Another – Appellant
Versus
Sushmi Supriya Mohapatra – Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2521 of 2025 [@ Special Leave Petition © No. 4298 of 2021] with Civil Appeal No. 2522 of 2025 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) NO. 10743 of 2021]
Decided on : 12-02-2025
Important Points
Reserved category candidates who avail eligibility relaxations cannot be appointed to Unreserved category posts. However, the Court may decline to disturb settled appointments if the petitioner lacks sufficient merit for selection or failed to implead the affected parties.
Subject
Administrative Law - Public Employment
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Article 14 - Equal Protection of Laws - The State of Odisha advertised 1828 vacancies for Secondary School teachers, with conditions that Reserved Category candidates could only be treated as Unreserved if selected on merit. The respondent contended that Reserved Category candidates were wrongfully appointed to Unreserved posts. The High Court's order to exclude Reserved Category candidates from the Unreserved provisional list was upheld, reflecting the proper interpretation of the advertisement conditions. However, selection of candidates was not disturbed due to their established position and the respondent's lower score compared to the last selected candidate in the Unreserved category. (Paras 7, 9, 10)
(B) Selection Process - The court affirmed the sanctity of the selection criteria outlined in the advertisement and stressed adherence to the principles of merit-based selection. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The respondent filed a writ petition alleging wrongful selection of Reserved Category candidates for Unreserved posts, in violation of the advertisement terms. The High Court initially intervened but later allowed adjustments while recognizing existing selections.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Division Bench's order affirming that only candidates selected on merit could occupy Unreserved seats, thus maintaining the principles laid out in the advertisement.
Issues: Whether Reserved Category candidates were improperly appointed to Unreserved posts as per the selection criteria.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the conditions of the advertisement explicitly prohibited Reserved candidates from being counted towards the Unreserved category if they had received any relaxation; hence their selection was invalid for Unreserved representation. Despite this, the established status of the selected candidates and the respondent's scores warranted non-intervention in the assignments.
Result: Civil appeal partially allowed, directions related to list correction set aside.
(B) Selection Process - The court affirmed the sanctity of the selection criteria outlined in the advertisement and stressed adherence to the principles of merit-based selection. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The respondent filed a writ petition alleging wrongful selection of Reserved Category candidates for Unreserved posts, in violation of the advertisement terms. The High Court initially intervened but later allowed adjustments while recognizing existing selections.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Division Bench's order affirming that only candidates selected on merit could occupy Unreserved seats, thus maintaining the principles laid out in the advertisement.
Issues: Whether Reserved Category candidates were improperly appointed to Unreserved posts as per the selection criteria.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the conditions of the advertisement explicitly prohibited Reserved candidates from being counted towards the Unreserved category if they had received any relaxation; hence their selection was invalid for Unreserved representation. Despite this, the established status of the selected candidates and the respondent's scores warranted non-intervention in the assignments.
Result: Civil appeal partially allowed, directions related to list correction set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether reserved category candidates who availed eligibility relaxations can be appointed to unreserved category posts contrary to the terms of the recruitment advertisement. (Para 4 , 8 , 9 )
3. Reserved category candidates selected through relaxation of eligibility cannot occupy unreserved seats; however, equity and lack of merit of the petitioner preclude revising the list. (Para 7 , 9 , 10 )
4. Candidates from reserved categories who avail eligibility relaxations cannot be treated as unreserved candidates or fill unreserved category vacancies. (Para 7 )
5. Directions to revise the selection list set aside; appeals disposed of. (Para 10 , 11 )
6. Can a reserved category candidate be appointed to an unreserved post?
Yes, provided the candidate is selected on merit and has not availed any relaxation admissible to their social category, as per the specific conditions of the recruitment advertisement. (Para 3 , 7 )
7. What is the effect of availing eligibility relaxations on the ability to fill unreserved vacancies?
Candidates who are selected by relaxing eligibility conditions cannot fill seats reserved for the unreserved category. (Para 7 )
8. Under what circumstances may a court refuse to disturb a selection process despite a legal error in the list?
A court may refuse to disturb the process if the petitioner lacks the merit to be selected even after correction and failed to implead the affected candidates. (Para 9 , 10 )
ORDER :
Leave granted.
2. The State of Odisha had advertised 1828 vacancies for Secondary School teachers in Government Schools in Odisha on 23.02.2019. Out of the 1828 vacancies, regular vacancies for Unreserved/SC/ST/SEBC were 253/81/113/57 respectively and unfilled vacancies of previous recruitment for Unreserved/SC/ST/SEBC were 662/215/298/149, respectively.
3. One of the main conditions of the advertisement under Clause 13(l) was that "A candidate of any social reservation category shall be treated as UR candidate if he/she is selected on merit and has not availed any relaxation admissible to his/her social category."
4. The respondent before this Court filed a writ petition before the High Court stating that she belongs to Unreserved Category and candidates belonging to Reserved Category have been appointed to posts for Unreserved candidates, which should not have been done as per the above-mentioned condition in the advertisement.
5. The petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge by directing the State to consider the case of the present respondent, but the Single Judge refused to interfere with the selection process. Thereafter, the present respondent approached the Division Bench against this order, and prayed for quashing of the provisional select list. The Division Bench disposed of the writ appeal by modifying the order of the Single Judge, and directed the State to revise the provisional select list by excluding Reserved Category candidates from the provisional select list prepared for the
6. Unreserved Category. Consequently, the State of Odisha is before us in this Special Leave Petition.
7. We have gone through the conditions of appointment as well as Clause 13(l) of the advertisement. It is absolutely clear that since, in the present case, the Reserved Category candidates have been selected by relaxing the eligibility condition, they could not have filled the seats for Unreserved Category. Therefore, we see no fault in the order of the Division Bench of the High Court, on principle of law, to the extent that it holds that the State was liable to follow Clause 13(l) of the advertisement issued by it. This conclusion of the Division Bench, in our view, reflects the conditions of selection as contained in Clause 13(l) of the advertisement, as referred above, correctly.
8. However, it has been stated before this Court by the learned counsel representing the State of Odisha that the selected candidates who have been given appointment way back in the year 2019, are presently teaching in different Government Schools all over the State of Odisha and it would not be proper to disturb the selection at this stage, particularly when no one, apart from the present respondent, approached the High Court and this Court.
9. Another aspect which has been brought to our attention by the State, has to be taken into consideration. It is that the present respondent, who was petitioner before the High Court, has secured only 71.75 marks, whereas the last candidate of Unreserved category had obtained 76.25 marks. Now, even if the list is revised as per the directions of the High Court in the impugned order, the last Unreserved Category candidate who would be selected would have secured 75 marks. This, evidently, is much higher than the marks secured by the present respondent in the examination and there are many candidates having much higher marks than the respondent. Thus, the respondent had absolutely no chance of being selected even as per the directions in the impugned order.
10. Under these circumstances, we set aside only the further directions given by the High Court to correct the entire list. In addition to what has been stated above, we do this for two reasons. Firstly, those who have been selected are in any case the ones whose name figured in the list of selected candidates and secondly, the private respondent (i.e. the petitioner before the High Court) had not made any of the selected candidates a party.
11. With the abov
