Chaya vs State Of Maharashtra - 2026 Supreme(SC) 299

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 299

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ALOK ARADHE
Chaya – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv. Mr. R.k. Singh, Adv. Mrs. Neeraj Singh, Adv. Mr. Tom Joseph, AOR Mr. B. Ravindra Kumar, Adv. Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Adv. Ms. Muskan Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shyam Mehta, Sr. Adv. Mr. Varad Kilor, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Kuldeep Singh Kuchaliya, Adv. Ms. Richa Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Aman Rastogi, Adv. Mr. Sanjay Rastogi, AOR Dr. Linto K.b., AOR Mr. Praveen Pathak, Adv. Mr. Duvvada Ramesh, Adv. Ms. Pankhuri Shrivastava, Adv. Ms. Neelam Sharma, AOR Mr. Alekshendra Sharma, Adv. Mr. Deepankar Kumar, Adv. Ms. Geetanjali Mohan, AOR Ms. Saumya Tiwari, Adv. Ms. Shalini Chandra, AOR Mr. Virag Gupta, Adv. Ms. Rupali Panwar, Adv. Mr. U M Tripathi, Adv. Mr. Vishal Arun Mishra, AOR Mr. Kailas Bajirao Autade, AOR

Judgement Key Points

Relaxation in qualifying criteria only affects eligibility and not merit, and migration to the open category is permissible in the absence of any express prohibition in Recruitment Rules or employment notification (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
If a candidate belonging to a reserved category does not fulfil essential eligibility criteria prescribed for a selection, he/she cannot be permitted to migrate to the open category (!) (!) .
Migration of a reserved category candidate who has availed of a concession/relaxation in qualifying examination depends on Recruitment Rules or employment notification; if such rules permit such migration, it is permissible (!) (!) .
Such migration shall also be permissible if Recruitment Rules or employment notification are either silent or do not expressly prohibit it (!) (!) .
Concessions and relaxations in fee or age provided to reserved category candidates merely enable entry into the zone of consideration and cannot be treated as relaxation in the standard prescribed for qualifying the written examination if such relaxation does not affect inter se merit (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
A relaxation or concession in the qualifying examination merely creates a level playing field where no concession or relaxation is granted in the ultimate selection, and the same is solely made on the basis of inter se merit (!) (!) (!) .
The decision in Pradeep Kumar applies only when candidates do not fulfil essential eligibility criteria (e.g., failing to secure minimum marks in a qualifying exam where no relaxation is permitted by the governing authority), whereas in cases where the governing authority itself permits relaxation, the decision in Jitendra Kumar Singh and Vikas Sankhala applies (!) (!) (!) (!) .
In Vikas Sankhala, this Court upheld that reserved category candidates can migrate to unreserved vacancies if they secured more marks than the last selected unreserved candidate, provided the relaxation in the qualifying exam (TET) carried limited weightage in the final merit calculation and did not disturb the level-playing field (!) (!) .
In Jitendra Kumar Singh, this Court held that concessions in fee or age do not tilt the balance in favour of reserved category candidates in the preparation of the final merit/select list, as all candidates participate in the open competition on merit once eligibility is established (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 mandates that only persons possessing minimum qualifications prescribed by the NCTE are eligible for appointment as teachers, and the NCTE guidelines expressly empower State Governments to provide concessions to reserved categories (!) (!) (!) .
The Government of Maharashtra, under the authority granted by NCTE guidelines, passed resolutions allowing a 5% relaxation in qualifying marks for reserved category candidates for the TET examination (!) (!) (!) (!) .
The Commissioner (Education) of Maharashtra erred in relying on Pradeep Kumar and issuing directions that excluded reserved category candidates who availed relaxation from the open category, as the relaxation was expressly permitted by the NCTE and only served to enable participation in the main examination (!) (!) (!) .
The appellants, who are more meritorious than the last selected candidate under the general category, cannot be excluded from consideration under the general category in the absence of any express prohibition in the Recruitment Rules/notification (!) (!) (!) .

JUDGMENT :

ALOK ARADHE, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 14.02.2025, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad (High Court). The appellants belonging to reserved categories, had challenged the merit list dated 25.02.2024 prepared pursuant to Teachers Aptitude and Intelligence Test, 2022 (TAIT), conducted by Maharashtra State Council for Education (MSCE) for recruitment of teachers to the different schools of Zila Parishad, Municipal Corporations, Nagar Parishad and Private Managements. The High Court by impugned judgment has dismissed the writ petitions.

3. The appellants, though more meritorious, were excluded from the merit list dated 25.02.2024 on the ground that they had availed of relaxation in the qualifying marks in Teachers Eligibility Test (TET).

4. Various decisions of this Court have given rise to lengthy submissions before us. However, the controversy in the present batch of appeals lies in a narrow compass. The principal issue is whether candidates belonging to reserved categories, who have availed relaxation in a qualifying examination to become eligible for the main selection process, are entitled to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(SC) 299

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ALOK ARADHEChaya – AppellantVersusState Of Maharashtra – Respondent

Cases Referred (12)

Related Judgments

Chaya VS State Of Maharashtra - 2026 3 Supreme 499

Vijay S/o. Vishwanath Sanap vs State Of Maharashtra Through Its Secretary School Education And Sports Department, Mantralaya, Mumbai - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 250

Vijay S/o. Vishwanath Sanap vs State Of Maharashtra - 2025 Supreme(Bom) 336

GOPI CHAND vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND - 2025 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1008043

Jasveer S/o Jagdish VS State of Rajasthan - 2024 Supreme(Raj) 1456

Mamta Rani, wife of Sri Abhijit Kumar Gupta VS State of Jharkhand - 2024 Supreme(Jhk) 824

Man Mohan Kapoor VS State of Himachal Pradesh - 2021 Supreme(HP) 169

Mahendra Pal VS State of U. P. - 2024 Supreme(All) 1172

Mahendra Pal VS State of U. P. , Thru Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. - 2023 Supreme(All) 337

Telangana State Level Police Recruitment Board vs Polampelli Raju - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Tel) 11839

PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, ALOK ARADHE
Chaya – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent