Back
Relaxed Personality Test Not Bar to Unreserved Posts for Reserved Candidates:
In a significant ruling on public employment and reservation, the recently held that candidates belonging to who were afforded in the personality test are not automatically disqualified from competing for , provided the governing rules permit selection based on . The Division Bench, comprising Justice Madhuresh Prasad and Justice Prasenjit Biswas, dismissed a writ petition challenging the migration of such candidates into the general category merit list, underscoring that the recruitment scheme’s focus on overrides any distinction drawn at the personality test stage.
Background: The Recruitment Drive and the Dispute
The case arose from a recruitment process initiated by the (PSC) for filling the posts of Junior Engineers (Civil) in the across multiple departments. An employment notice was issued, and a merit list of 1,082 candidates was first recommended on . Subsequently, the PSC extended the panel beyond its originally intended currency and made 55 additional recommendations to fill posts that remained vacant due to non-joining of earlier selected candidates.
A group of unsuccessful general-category candidates, led by Koushik Chatterjee, sought information under the , and discovered that the recruitment process had not accounted for vacancies in three departments—the , the , and the . They approached the , arguing that reserved category candidates who had been awarded lesser marks in the personality test under had been wrongly included in the general standard merit list, thereby depriving unreserved candidates of their rightful positions.
The Tribunal rejected their plea, prompting the petitioners to file a writ petition before the .
The Core Legal Question
The central issue before the Division Bench was whether reserved category candidates who had benefited from relaxed qualifying marks in the personality test could be considered for unreserved (general) category vacancies. The petitioners contended that once a candidate is given relaxation in assessing merit, they cannot be placed against a general category seat. They argued that the Tribunal ought to have cancelled the recommendations of such candidates and directed their reallocation to reserved category vacancies, thereby making way for petitioners who belonged to the unreserved group.
On the other hand, the respondents—including the and the PSC—submitted that the final merit list was prepared on the basis of the obtained in both the written examination and the personality test. The difference in qualifying marks for the personality test was irrelevant because the scheme itself provided for assessment of all candidates based on total marks. Moreover, no provision in the recruitment rules barred a reserved candidate, even one who had availed in the personality test, from being considered against an unreserved vacancy if their overall aggregate was higher than that of unreserved candidates.
The High Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Division Bench closely examined the governing scheme and the minutes of the recruitment process. It observed that the scheme explicitly stated that the final merit list would be prepared on the basis of the total marks obtained by candidates in both the written examination and the personality test. This aggregate formed the sole basis for consideration across categories. The Bench noted that the prescription of lower qualifying marks for reserved category candidates in the personality test alone would not support the petitioners’ grievance.
“The scheme provided for assessment of all candidates based on . Further no provision barred consideration of reserved category candidate against unreserved vacancy if they availed benefit of in personality test. Therefore, there was no scope for grievance that 55 candidates could not be placed in unreserved category by virtue of their merit based on .”
The court also addressed the petitioners’ argument regarding the non-inclusion of vacancies from the three departments. The PSC had clarified that at the time the recruitment process was initiated, no vacancies were reported by those departments, and the commission could only advertise and fill positions that had been officially notified. The Bench accepted this explanation.
On the petitioners’ prayer for a direction to consider them against other vacancies, the court found that the petitioners had failed to demonstrate that any of them were next in the merit order after the last selected candidate. Even if additional vacancies were made available, there was no certainty that all petitioners would be accommodated. The court noted that the last recommendations were made on , and with the expiry of the panel, the State could not be compelled to fill vacancies or consider empaneled candidates as a matter of course.
Implications for Service Law and Reservation Policy
This judgment reinforces the principle that the purpose of reservation is to at the entry stage—here, the personality test—but it does not create a permanent barrier preventing reserved category candidates from competing on merit for unreserved posts. The decision aligns with the settled position that where the recruitment scheme itself treats all candidates on an equal footing based on , a candidate’s initial does not disqualify them from being considered against .
Legal practitioners observing service law developments note that this ruling provides clarity to public service commissions and government departments drafting recruitment rules. It emphasizes that the language of the governing scheme is critical—if the rules expressly permit , such migration cannot be challenged merely because the candidate enjoyed a relaxation at one stage. Conversely, if the rules specifically bar such migration, the outcome might differ.
The judgment also serves as a reminder that the burden lies on the petitioners to demonstrate actual prejudice—i.e., that they were next in merit after the last selected candidate—before a court can direct re-consideration of vacancies. Without such evidence, a challenge based solely on in the personality test is unlikely to succeed.
Conclusion
With these observations, the Division Bench upheld the order of the and dismissed the writ petition filed by Koushik Chatterjee and others. The court found that no hardship had been caused to the petitioners because the 55 candidates had legitimately occupied unreserved posts based on their aggregate merit, and no vacancies remained to be filled.
The decision is a clear affirmation that in matters of public employment, the substantive objective of merit-based selection, as expressed through , will prevail over procedural distinctions drawn at individual stages of assessment. It reinforces the flexibility inherent in reservation policies when implemented through well-drafted schemes and provides a significant reference point for future disputes over the migration of reserved category candidates to .
