REET Relaxation for Eligibility No Bar to General Category Migration if No Recruitment Concession Availed: Rajasthan HC - 2025-05-28

Rajasthan High Court Upholds Migration Rights for REET-Relaxed Reserved Category Candidates

Jodhpur, Rajasthan - The High Court of Rajasthan, Jodhpur Bench, in a significant judgment pronounced on May 26, 2025, has ruled that reserved category candidates who qualified the Rajasthan Teacher Eligibility Test (REET) with relaxed percentage marks are entitled to be considered for general category posts if they secure higher marks than the general category cut-off in the main recruitment examination. The division bench, comprising Hon’ble Chief Justice Mr. Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Munnuri Laxman , clarified that this migration is permissible provided the candidates did not avail any other relaxation during the recruitment process itself , as distinct from the eligibility stage.

The court allowed a batch of special appeals, including the lead case of Deepika Kunwar Chundawat (D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 31/2024 arising from S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14881/2023), thereby setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge.

Case Overview

The appellants were candidates for teacher positions advertised by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (RSSB) on December 16, 2022. They had secured higher marks in the recruitment examination than the cut-off for general category candidates. However, their candidature for general category posts was rejected because they had cleared the REET (an essential eligibility criterion) by availing the relaxed minimum qualifying percentage of 55%, applicable to reserved categories (SC, OBC, MBC, EWS), instead of the 60% required for general category candidates.

The central legal question before the court was whether availing relaxation in an eligibility test like REET, prior to the commencement of the recruitment process, disbars a meritorious reserved category candidate from migrating to a general category seat.

Arguments Presented

Appellants' Contentions: The appellants argued that:

* REET is merely an eligibility test and does not form part of the actual selection/recruitment process, which commences with the advertisement.

* They had not availed any relaxation (like age, attempts, etc., apart from fees) in the recruitment process itself .

* Denying them migration despite scoring higher than general category candidates was illegal.

* Clause 8.2 of the advertisement, which was based on a State Government circular dated July 26, 2017, only prohibited migration if a candidate had availed relaxation (other than fees) in the process of recruitment .

Respondents' (State and RSSB) Stance: The State and RSSB countered that:

* Acquiring REET eligibility, even with relaxed standards, means the candidates' entry into the recruitment process was based on a concession.

* Once any relaxation is availed, including in the eligibility test, the candidate cannot claim migration to a general category post.

* Clause 8.2 of the advertisement should be interpreted to mean that any relaxation, including in REET, would dis-entitle migration.

* They cited Supreme Court decisions to argue that candidates benefiting from relaxation should be confined to reserved category posts.

Legal Scrutiny and Precedents

The High Court meticulously analyzed the Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996, the advertisement conditions, and the pivotal Government circular dated July 26, 2017, which governed the migration policy. This circular, issued in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Deepa E.V. Versus Union of India & Others , stipulated that reserved category candidates would be counted against unreserved vacancies if they secured merit without availing special concessions (except fees) in the recruitment process .

The Court found: > (Para 18) "Therefore, on the face of the aforesaid policy/circular of reservation and rule of migration, if a candidate has obtained eligibility qualification prior to commencement of the process of selection, the policy/circular dated 26.07.2017 does not dis-entitle him/her to get the benefit of rule of migration in case marks obtained by him/her are higher than the marks obtained by the last general category candidate."

The Court emphasized that the relaxation for passing REET was based on an earlier government order (dated 16.12.2020) and not a concession granted under the terms and conditions of the current recruitment advertisement . > (Para 19) "...a candidate belonging to reserve category acquires eligibility criteria of REET pass not granted under the terms and conditions of the advertisement but on the basis of Government circular dated 16.12.2020, therefore, it cannot be said that the candidate belonging to reserve category, who has passed REET on relaxed criteria, has taken benefit of any relaxation in the recruitment process."

The bench extensively discussed Supreme Court precedents:

* Vikas Sankhala & Others Versus Vikas Kumar Agarwal & Others : The High Court found this case, which also dealt with relaxation in TET (Teacher Eligibility Test) in Rajasthan, to be "squarely covered" the present controversy. In Vikas Sankhala , the Supreme Court had held that relaxation in TET pass marks (an eligibility condition) does not amount to a concession in the recruitment process itself, as it only enables participation.

* Jitendra Kumar Singh & Others Versus State of U.P. & Others : Supported the view that eligibility relaxations (like age) do not bar migration if selection standards are met.

* Deepa E.V. Versus Union of India & Others and Government (NCT of Delhi) & Others Versus Pradeep Kumar & Others :

These were distinguished by the High Court on the grounds that they involved different rules, policies, or factual matrices, such as express bars on migration after availing any relaxation or specific Office Memorandums not applicable in the present case. The court saw no conflict between Vikas Sankhala and Pradeep Kumar , stating both "proceed on application of different rule/policy of migration."

Final Decision and Implications

Allowing the appeals, the High Court set aside the Single Judge's order and held: > (Para 46) "The writ petitions are consequently allowed and all the writ petitioners are held entitled to benefit of rule of migration. That means, if they have obtained marks more than the general category candidates, in the recruitment process, they are entitled to be considered against general category posts."

The State authorities were directed to revise the selection list accordingly and appoint the appellants against existing vacancies from the date other general category candidates were appointed. They are entitled to all consequential benefits, including seniority and pay fixation, with notional benefits, while actual salary would be payable from the date of the High Court's order.

This judgment clarifies the application of the migration rule for reserved category candidates in Rajasthan, particularly emphasizing that relaxation availed solely for meeting eligibility criteria (like REET) does not, under the current state policy, preclude them from competing for general category posts based on their merit in the recruitment examination, provided no further relaxations are availed in the recruitment process itself.