LawChakra

Vacancies  Notified as ‘Open’, ‘Unreserved’ or ‘General’ Are Open to All Regardless of Caste, Tribe, Class, or Gender: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has clarified that vacancies advertised as “open”, “unreserved” or “general” are not earmarked for any category and must be filled purely on merit. Such posts are open to all eligible candidates irrespective of caste, tribe, class, or gender.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

Vacancies  Notified as 'Open', 'Unreserved' or 'General' Are Open to All Regardless of Caste, Tribe, Class, or Gender: Supreme Court

NEW DELHI: In a ruling on reservation in public employment, the Supreme Court of India has reaffirmed that vacancies notified or advertised as “open”, “unreserved”, or “general” are not reserved for any caste, tribe, class, or gender. Such posts are open to all candidates purely on merit, irrespective of their social category.

The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Augustine George Masih, while deciding a batch of civil appeals filed by the Rajasthan High Court administration and its Registrar. The appeals challenged an order of the Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court that had allowed a writ petition filed by certain candidates from reserved categories.

The Supreme Court categorically held:

“The word ‘open’ connotes nothing but ‘open’. Vacant posts notified as ‘open’, ‘unreserved’, or ‘general’ do not fall in any category and are open to all suitable candidates, regardless of caste, tribe, class, or gender.”

Relying on landmark judgments such as Indra Sawhney v. Union of India and Saurav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the Court clarified that the terms “open”, “unreserved”, and “general” are used only to denote posts not earmarked for reservation, and not to restrict competition to general category candidates alone.

Background of the Case

The dispute arose from a recruitment process initiated by the Rajasthan High Court under the Rajasthan High Court Staff Service Rules, 2002.

Under the recruitment process, the Rajasthan High Court issued an advertisement dated 5 August 2022 inviting applications for a total of 2,756 vacancies to the post of Junior Judicial Assistant/Clerk Grade-II in the High Court, the Rajasthan State Judicial Academy, District Courts, and allied institutions.

The selection process comprised a competitive examination conducted in two stages, namely a written examination followed by a computer-based typewriting test. The advertised vacancies were distributed category-wise among General, Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribe (ST), Other Backward Class (OBC), Most Backward Class (MBC), and Economically Weaker Section (EWS), in addition to providing for horizontal reservations for specified categories.

Notably, the cut-off marks for certain reserved categories were higher than those for the General category.

The Grievance of Reserved Category Candidates

Several candidates belonging to reserved categories scored more marks than the General category cut-off in the written examination. However:

Aggrieved by this approach, one of the candidates filed a writ petition before the Rajasthan High Court, which ruled in their favour. This decision was subsequently challenged before the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court Observation

The Supreme Court strongly emphasized the constitutional vision of equality under Articles 14, 16, and 335 of the Constitution of India.

The Bench observed:

The Court clarified that affirmative action does not mean exclusion from open competition, but rather ensuring fair opportunity.

The appellants argued that allowing reserved category candidates to be considered for open posts amounted to “migration”.

Rejecting this contention, the Court held:

The Court explained that once a candidate clears both stages of the merit examination, their cumulative score must be considered in a combined merit list, ranking all candidates from highest to lowest marks.

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of preparing a broadsheet or combined merit list, stating:

The Supreme Court found no rule, law, or executive instruction that barred the Rajasthan High Court from treating reserved category candidates as General/Open candidates once they surpassed others on merit.

The Bench concluded:

“Accepting the appellants’ argument would not only harm candidates from disadvantaged sections but also erode constitutional principles.”

Praising the Rajasthan High Court’s Division Bench for correcting the error, the Supreme Court:

Appearance:
Appellants:
Senior Advocate Nidhesh Gupta, AOR Mukul Kumar, Advocates Kartik Seth, Shilpa Saini, Raghav Sharma, Shubhankar Singh, Lakshmi Kant Srivastava, K. M. Abish, Ashutosh Anand, and Minesh Joshi
Respondents: Senior Advocates K.S. Chauhan, P.S. Teji, AORs Avinash Sharma, Ajit Kumar Ekka, Amit, Advocates Ravi Prakash, Abhishek Chauhan, R.S.M. Kalky, R.K. Chauhan, S.P. Singh, Sunil Kumar, Ravi Shankar Singh, Ramesh Kumar, Aditi Chauhan, Nav Parkash Singh Teji, Himanshu Jain, Sandeep Malik, Ajit Kumar, Bhim Kishore, Prabjeet Sandhu, Satpal, and Rishi Raj Maheshwari.

Case Title:
Rajasthan High Court & Anr. v. Rajat Yadav & Ors.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 14112 OF 2024

READ JUDGMENT

Read More Reports On Reservation

FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES

Exit mobile version