MP High Court Mandates Migration for Meritorious Reserved Candidates at All Exam Stages

Jabalpur , MP - In a significant ruling, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, led by Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain , has directed its Examination Cell to extend the benefit of migration to meritorious reserved category candidates against unreserved posts at every stage of the selection process in all future recruitments. This decision aims to ensure that candidates from reserved categories (OBC, SC, ST) who secure marks equal to or higher than unreserved category candidates are considered for unreserved seats from the preliminary examination stage itself.

The order came in response to a writ petition (WP 32834/2024) filed by the Anusuchit Jati Evam Jan Jati Adhikari Karmachari Sangh (Ajjaks), which will have far-reaching implications for recruitment processes conducted by the High Court.

Background of the Plea

The petitioner, Ajjaks, contended that in the recruitment processes for the Madhya Pradesh Judicial Services conducted by the MP High Court's exam cell, meritorious reserved category candidates were not being allowed to migrate to unreserved seats at the preliminary examination stage. They argued that this practice forced such candidates to be placed against reserved seats even if their scores qualified them for unreserved positions, thereby causing "grave injustice" and adversely affecting their rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (Equality before Law) and 16 (Equality of opportunity in matters of public employment) of the Constitution of India.

The petitioner sought a directive for the High Court to: 1. Call for records of recruitment processes. 2. Ensure meritorious reserved category candidates are selected against unreserved posts at every stage if they meet the criteria. 3. Strictly follow the precedent set in Kishore Choudhary vs State of MP & Others .

Conflicting High Court Views and Supreme Court's Intervention

The judgment navigated through conflicting interpretations by different benches of the High Court:

• Kishore Choudhary vs State of MP & Others (W.P. No. 542/2021): A coordinate bench had previously held: > "We are of the considered view that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney (supra) can be translated into reality only when reserved category candidate secured equal or more marks with U.R. category candidate is given birth in U.R. category in all stages of selection including preliminary and the main examination. Any other interpretation will defeat the purpose and the constitutional scheme flowing from Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India ……………”

• Pushpendra Kumar Patel and others Vs. State of M.P. and others (W.P. No. 8750/2022): Another coordinate bench took a contrary view, opining that the Kishore Choudhary decision regarding migration at the preliminary stage was per incuriam (passed in ignorance of a binding precedent) in relation to the Indra Sawhney case, as Indra Sawhney did not specifically address the stage at which migration could be availed.

However, the current bench highlighted a recent Supreme Court judgment that resolved this divergence.

Supreme Court Settles the Debate: The Deependra Yadav Precedent

The High Court heavily relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Deependra Yadav and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and other (2024 SCC Online SC 724) . The apex court, in this case, "drawn curtains on the issue" of extending migration benefits at the preliminary stage. The Supreme Court observed:

"30. We may also note that Rule 4(3)(d)(III) of the Rules of 2015 patently harmed the interests of the reservation category candidates, as even meritorious candidates from such categories, who had not availed any reservation benefit/relaxation, were to be treated as belonging to those reservation categories and they were not to be segregated with meritorious unreserved category candidates at the preliminary examination result stage. As a result, they continued to occupy the reservation category slots which would have otherwise gone to deserving reservation category candidates lower down in the merit list of that category, had they been included with meritorious unreserved category candidates on the strength of their marks."

The Supreme Court further cited Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P. (2021) 4 SCC 542 , affirming that "candidates belonging to any of the vertical reservation categories would be entitled to be selected in the ‘open category’ and if such candidates belonging to reservation categories are entitled to be selected on the basis of their own merit, their selection cannot be counted against the quota reserved for the categories of vertical reservation that they belong to."

The Supreme Court in Deependra Yadav explicitly approved the legality and validity of the process undertaken after the Kishore Choudhary judgment, whereby a greater number of meritorious reservation category candidates cleared the preliminary examination by being considered for unreserved seats.

The High Court's Final Order

In light of the Supreme Court's clear pronouncements in Deependra Yadav , the Madhya Pradesh High Court, comprising Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain , issued the following directive:

"10. In view of the above, we direct that henceforth in all future recruitment exams conducted by Examination Cell of High Court of Madhya Pradesh benefit of migration shall be extended to meritorious reserved category candidates in unreserved category in all the stages of selection process. It is however clarified that ongoing recruitment examination conducted by the Examination Cell wherein examination (preliminary or mains as the case may be) has already been conducted shall not be affected by this order."

The petition was accordingly disposed of with this direction.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces the principle of merit and ensures that reserved category candidates who perform exceptionally well are not confined to reserved quotas if they qualify for open category seats based on their scores. It standardizes the recruitment procedure within the MP High Court's examination cell, aligning it with the settled legal position established by the Supreme Court. This will likely lead to a more equitable selection process, allowing a larger pool of deserving candidates from reserved backgrounds to compete effectively at all stages of recruitment. The clarification that ongoing examinations remain unaffected provides stability to current processes while ensuring future adherence to the clarified principle.