Back
Reserved Candidate Selected on Entitled to Better Reserved Post: Supreme Court
The has reaffirmed a critical principle governing reservations in public employment: a candidate from a who secures a position through without availing any is entitled to claim a over a reserved candidate who scored lower marks. The observation came from a bench of Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B. Varale while hearing a batch of petitions arising from a judgment concerning service allocation in the state's civil services examination.
The Dispute: Higher Marks, Lesser Service
The case originated from the 6th Combined Civil Services Examination conducted by the . Four reserved-category candidates—Chandan (Scheduled Caste), Sanjay Kumar Mahto (EBC-I), Gautam Kumar (EBC), and Kumar Avinash (Scheduled Caste)—had scored marks ranging from 606 to 621 out of 1,150. Despite securing higher totals than many reserved-category candidates who obtained the coveted Jharkhand Administrative Service, they were allotted less preferred services such as Information Service, Finance Service, and Planning Service. The last unreserved candidate selected for Administrative Service had 631 marks, but lower-scoring reserved candidates had also secured that post.
The petitioners argued that being treated as "" candidates under Clause 8 of the recruitment advertisement put them at a disadvantage. That clause, based on a state government policy, treated a reserved-category candidate as an open-category candidate if they were selected without availing any —but it did not account for their right to compete for better reserved posts against weaker reserved candidates.
High Court's View and the Appeal
The had upheld a single judge's refusal to direct reallocation, noting that the petitioners had been allocated services in line with Clause 8 and had secured marks at par with the last selected candidates in their respective services. The High Court found no illegality in the treatment of the petitioners as open-category candidates.
Aggrieved, the four approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the policy effectively punished by ignoring their superior scores when compared to other reserved candidates who gained better posts.
on Merit and Reservation
The Supreme Court, after hearing senior counsel for both sides, declared the legal position well-settled. The bench referred to the judgment in Union of India v. Ramesh Ram (2010) 7 SCC 234, which had conclusively held that a reserved-category candidate selected on without availing any cannot be denied the right to a better reserved post than a lower-scoring reserved candidate.
“On the main issue, law is quite settled and has been reiterated by this Court in several judgments with the last one being that of a larger Bench in In such view of the matter, there is no difficulty in holding that a person who is otherwise eligible under the and has been fitted into the , is entitled to a better post under the as against a person who has secured lesser marks than him in the ,” the Court said.
The Question
Respondents had argued that the petitioners had in fact availed some form of during selection, which would disentitle them from the benefit of the principle. However, the bench found no material to support this claim.
“We do not find any material to substantiate the same,” the Court noted, while granting the State and the JPSC six weeks to file an affidavit clarifying whether any was extended to the petitioners.
An Incidental Issue: Impact on Unreserved Candidates
The Court also flagged an incidental question: if a reserved-category candidate who had migrated to the unreserved category is subsequently sent back to a reserved post of their choice, what happens to the unreserved candidates who would be displaced? This issue, the bench indicated, may require further examination.
Next Steps
The Supreme Court has listed the matters for further hearing on , giving time for the respondents to place on record the relevant facts regarding . Until then, the legal principle stands as clarified: cannot be forced to accept a lesser post than what they could claim against lower-scoring reserved candidates.
The decision reinforces a consistent line of jurisprudence aimed at ensuring that reservation policies reward genuine merit without creating perverse incentives for reserved-category candidates to avoid .
