1. Recruitment for judicial assistants — Category-wise shortlisting for typewriting test — Exclusion of meritorious reserved category candidates who outscored the general cut-off. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 2119
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DIPANKAR DATTA, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, JJ.
Rajasthan High Court & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Rajat Yadav & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 14112 of 2024 With Civil Appeal No(s). 3957-4009 of 2025
Decided On : 19-12-2025
Important Points
Reserved category candidates who score above the general category cut-off must be treated as general candidates, ensuring merit prevails in recruitment processes as mandated by the Constitution.
Subject
Employment and Labour Law - Recruitment and Reservation
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.14, Art.16, Art.16(4), Art.309, Art.335
RAJASTHAN STATE AND SUBORDINATE SERVICES DIRECT RECRUITMENT BY COMBINED COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION RULES: R.13
RAJASTHAN STATE AND SUBORDINATE SERVICES DIRECT RECRUITMENT BY COMBINED COMPETITIVE EXAMINATION RULES: R.13
Headnote
(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14 and 16 - Rajasthan District Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 - Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002 - Recruitment for Judicial Assistant/Clerk - Eligibility criteria debated on grounds of merit and reservation - Reserved category candidates securing higher marks than General category were unjustly excluded, violating equality principles. (Paras 12-22)
(B) Migration of Reserved Candidates - Court established that meritorious reserved category candidates should not be confined to their category when outscoring general candidates, ensuring constitutional equality in recruitment processes. (Paras 53-74)
Facts of the case:
Candidates from reserved categories scored above the cut-off for General category but were excluded from selection lists. They filed petitions challenging this exclusion due to a flawed selection approach. (Paras 6-11)
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench ordered that reserved candidates who score higher than General category candidates must be treated as Open category candidates, preserving merit and equality. (Paras 25-26)
Issues: Whether reserving posts for General category breaches constitutional rights for reserved category candidates scoring higher. (Paras 9-10)
Ratio Decidendi: Conducting category-wise selection which excludes more meritorious reserved category candidates contravenes equality provisions. The selection process must validate merit over categories. (Paras 19-20)
Result: Appeals dismissed, affirming High Court's order for re-evaluation of the recruitment process.
(B) Migration of Reserved Candidates - Court established that meritorious reserved category candidates should not be confined to their category when outscoring general candidates, ensuring constitutional equality in recruitment processes. (Paras 53-74)
Facts of the case:
Candidates from reserved categories scored above the cut-off for General category but were excluded from selection lists. They filed petitions challenging this exclusion due to a flawed selection approach. (Paras 6-11)
Findings of Court:
The Division Bench ordered that reserved candidates who score higher than General category candidates must be treated as Open category candidates, preserving merit and equality. (Paras 25-26)
Issues: Whether reserving posts for General category breaches constitutional rights for reserved category candidates scoring higher. (Paras 9-10)
Ratio Decidendi: Conducting category-wise selection which excludes more meritorious reserved category candidates contravenes equality provisions. The selection process must validate merit over categories. (Paras 19-20)
Result: Appeals dismissed, affirming High Court's order for re-evaluation of the recruitment process.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- constitutional law
- administrative law
- practice and procedure
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Kartik Seth, Adv. Ms. Shilpa Saini, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shubhankar Singh, Adv. Mr. Lakshmi Kant Srivastava, Adv. Mr. K. M. Abish, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Adv. Mr. Minesh Joshi, Adv. M/s Chambers Of Kartik Seth, AOR Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukul Kumar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Avinash Sharma, AOR Dr. K.S. Chauhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. P.S. Teji, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajit Kumar Ekka, AOR Mr. Ravi Prakash, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Adv. Mr. R.S.M. Kalky, Adv. Dr. R.K. Chauhan, Adv. Mr. S.P. Singh, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ravi Shankar Singh, Adv. Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Aditi Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Nav Parkash Singh Teji, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Jain, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Malik, Adv. Mr. Ajit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Bhim Kishore, Adv. Ms. Prabjeet Sandhu, Adv. Mr. Satpal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Raj Maheshwari, Adv. Mr. Amit, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Kartik Seth, Adv. Ms. Shilpa Saini, Adv. Mr. Raghav Sharma, Adv. Mr. Shubhankar Singh, Adv. Mr. Lakshmi Kant Srivastava, Adv. Mr. K. M. Abish, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Adv. Mr. Minesh Joshi, Adv. M/s Chambers Of Kartik Seth, AOR Mr. Nidhesh Gupta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukul Kumar, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Avinash Sharma, AOR Dr. K.S. Chauhan, Sr. Adv. Mr. P.S. Teji, Sr. Adv. Mr. Ajit Kumar Ekka, AOR Mr. Ravi Prakash, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Adv. Mr. R.S.M. Kalky, Adv. Dr. R.K. Chauhan, Adv. Mr. S.P. Singh, Adv. Mr. Sunil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ravi Shankar Singh, Adv. Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Aditi Chauhan, Adv. Mr. Nav Parkash Singh Teji, Adv. Mr. Himanshu Jain, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Malik, Adv. Mr. Ajit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Bhim Kishore, Adv. Ms. Prabjeet Sandhu, Adv. Mr. Satpal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Raj Maheshwari, Adv. Mr. Amit, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Whether migration of reserved candidates to general category occurs only at final selection or at intermediate shortlisting stages — Applicability of the principle of estoppel. (Para 28 , 30 , 31 , 34 , 36 , 37 , 40 )
3. Open category is accessible to all on merit — Merit-based inclusion at shortlisting is not migration — Estoppel inapplicable to constitutional violations. (Para 43 , 44 , 46 , 49 , 50 , 58 , 61 , 62 , 67 , 70 , 73 )
4. Reserved category candidates securing marks above the general cut-off without special concessions must be treated as general candidates during shortlisting. (Para 67 , 70 , 71 )
5. Appeals dismissed — Impugned order upheld — Direction to rework merit lists by prioritizing general merit across all categories. (Para 76 , 77 )
6. Does participation in a selection process estop a candidate from challenging the procedure later?
Generally, participation implies acceptance of the procedure. However, estoppel does not operate as a bar where the challenge pertains to a misconstruction of statutory rules or a violation of constitutional principles. (Para 43 , 44 , 46 )
7. Is the inclusion of a meritorious reserved category candidate in the general category at the shortlisting stage considered migration?
No. If a candidate outscores the general cut-off without availing special concessions, they are treated as a general candidate based on merit, not through migration or adjustment. (Para 66 , 67 , 70 )
8. Must the adjustment of reserved category candidates into the general category be confined to the final merit list?
No. Meritorious reserved candidates should be treated as general candidates at every stage where merit is assessed, provided they have not availed special benefits, to prevent the open category from becoming a reserved compartment. (Para 67 , 70 , 71 )
9. Can a reserved category candidate who availed special concessions be adjusted against the general category?
Generally, candidates who avail special concessions, such as age relaxation, cannot migrate to the general category, unless the governing statutory rules or executive instructions provide an express allowance. (Para 54 , 55 )
10. What happens if adjustment against the general category causes a meritorious reserved candidate to lose a preferred reserved post?
To ensure fairness and preserve merit within categories, such candidates must be permitted to be considered against the service or post in the reserved quota if it prevents their displacement by a less meritorious candidate. (Para 74 )
JUDGMENT :
DIPANKAR DATTA, J.
THE APPEALS
1. A Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur, allowed D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7564 of 2023 and connected matters vide judgment and order dated 18th September, 20231[impugned order]. Aggrieved by the impugned order, the administration of the High Court and its Registrar2[appellants] have preferred these civil appeals by special leave.
BRIEF RESUME OF FACTS
2. The basic facts triggering the appellate proceedings before us are undisputed.
3. The Rajasthan District Courts Ministerial Establishment Rules, 1986 were framed to regulate appointments and conditions of service in the ministerial establishments of the District Courts. Thereafter, the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002 were notified on 5th December, 2002, providing for recruitment to the post of Junior Judicial Assistant/Clerk Grade-II by way of a competitive examination comprising two stages, viz. a written test and a computer-based typewriting test.
4. In pursuance thereof, on 5th August, 2022, the High Court issued an advertisement. Applications were invited for appointment on 2756 vacancies in the posts of Junior Judicial Assistant/Clerk Grade-II in the High Court, the Rajasthan State Judicial Academy, the District Courts and allied institutions, including the Legal Services Authorities and Permanent Lok Adalats. The vacancies were distributed category-wise across General, Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST), Other Backward Class (OBC), Most Backward Class (MBC), Economically Weaker Section (EWS), and horizontal reservation for various other categories.
5. The scheme of selection envisaged a written test of 300 marks, followed by a typewriting test on computer of 100 marks. The qualifying marks in the written test were fixed at 50% for the General category, 45% for OBC and other categories, and 40% for SC/ST/PwD3[Persons with Disabilities]. It was further stipulated that only candidates securing the prescribed minimum in the written test, to the extent of five times the number of vacancies category-wise, would be eligible to appear in the typewriting test. The final merit list was to be drawn on the aggregate of marks secured by the aspirants at both stages.
6. The respondents in these appeals had applied pursuant to the aforementioned advertisement. Since they were found prima facie eligible, the appellants permitted them to appear in the written test.
7. The written test was held on 12th and 19th March, 2023. The respondents duly participated in the written test. The results followed soon, being declared on 1st May, 2023. The list of candidates who qualified for the second stage of the examination, i.e., the typewriting test on computer, was duly published. The break-up of candidates called for the type-writing test, which was thereafter scheduled between 26th May and 29th May, 2023, is given in the chart hereinbelow:
S. No. Category No. of Vacancies No. of candidates declared qualified for typewriting test
1 General 1077 5385
2 OBC-NCL 459 2295
3 MBC-NCL 136 680
4 EWS 286 1431
5 SC 416 2081
6 ST 370 1850
7 Saharia 12 11
Total 2756 13733
8. Significantly, the cut-off marks for various reserved categories like SC, OBC-NCL, MBC-NCL and EWS were higher than the cut-off marks provided for the General category. The cut-off marks, for various categories, is given hereinbelow:
S. No. Category Cut-off marks
01 General 196.3451
02 General (Widow) 135.0103
03 General (Divorcee) 158.7026
04 Scheduled Caste 202.4398
05 Scheduled Caste (Women) 200.0362
06 Scheduled Caste (Widow) 120.0437
07 Scheduled Caste (Divorcee) 166.5399
08 Scheduled Tribe 192.0553
09 Scheduled Tribe (Widow) 120.4113
10 Scheduled Tribe (Divorcee) 122.3075
11 Shariya Tribe 135.1360
12 Other Backward Class-NCL 230.4431
13 Other Backward Class-NCL (Women) 226.2512
14 Other Backward Class-NCL (Widow) 142.9102
15 Other Backward Class-NCL (Divorcee) 209.9972
16 More Backward Class-NCL
