Why reserved candidates availing relaxations are barred from open category recruitment

The state said the decision was based on an opinion in December 2024 by the then Advocate General.

The note said many states across the country have recruitment rules, specifying whether candidates availing relaxations in eligibility can be selected in the open category. However, since Maharashtra did not have such rules, many candidates took the legal route and approached courts challenging recruitment after results were declared. The note said this led to delays in recruitment as judicial orders had to be awaited.

The note referred to a notification dating back to 1998 of the Department of Personnel and Training of the Union government. This states if a “relaxed standard” is applied in selecting SC/ST/OBC candidates, such as age limit, experience qualification and number of chances permitted for written examinations, they are to be counted in reserved vacancies. “Such candidates would be deemed to be unavailable for consideration against unreserved vacancies,” it said. The government cited these in arriving at its decision.

What those opposing decision said

Former Congress minister Nitin Raut called the decision a “direct assault on the constitutional rights of backward communities”.

“The Constitution clearly states if a candidate from a reserved category secures marks equivalent to open category candidates on merit, he or she has every right to be selected under the open category. Denying that right merely because they availed technical concessions like age relaxation or fee benefits is nothing short of insulting their talent and hard work,” he said.

Raut claimed the decision was part of a “systematic attempt to weaken reservation through indirect means”. He argued that students from backward communities often rise through adverse social and economic conditions and should not be punished for using constitutionally sanctioned concessions.

“Merit cannot be monopolised by any particular class. Reserved category students work equally hard, often under far more difficult circumstances. Excluding them from open category competition despite their performance is a grave injustice,” he said.

The Congress leader pointed out that the Supreme Court repeatedly upheld the principle that meritorious reserved category candidates are entitled to open category seats. “This decision is not only anti-Constitutional but also appears to undermine judicial precedents,” he remarked.

Vanchit Bahujan Samaj president Prakash Ambedkar said the decision will be challenged before court. Referring to a Supreme Court order Ambedkar said, “ The apex court has made it clear that merit remains the only consideration for filling up open category positions irrespective of candidates from reservation categories.”

What courts said

The state government said the decision was to avoid recruitments being challenged before courts recurringly.

One such recent order was passed on March 23, 2026 by the Supreme Court, (Chaya and Ors. Etc), where the court held that in absence of any prohibition, migration of reserved candidates, who have received more marks than the last selected general category candidate, is permissible.

In the case, petitioners from Maharashtra, belonging to reserved categories, had challenged the merit list of a Teachers Aptitude and Intelligence Test, held in 2024, for recruitment of teachers. They had secured higher marks than the last selected general category candidate but were left out of the open merit list, as they had availed of a “relaxation” in the qualifying marks of an eligibility test. The Supreme Court said that the marks of the Teachers Eligibility Test were not an essential eligibility condition as per the prevailing guidelines for this particular recruitment, and hence adding them to the open merit list was permissible, as they were admittedly more meritorious, based on their higher marks than the last selected candidate.

Those opposed to the state government’s decision on Thursday, have cited this order.

This issue has been contentious before various courts.

In 2010, (Jitendra Kumar Singh and anr. Vs State of UP), a division bench of the Allahabad High Court, dealt with a similar issue and held that concessions granted in fee or relaxation of age to candidates belonging to the reserved category merely enable them to fall in the zone of consideration and it did not have an affect on whether they make it to the final merit list which is determined by a written exam and interview. It cited an Act in UP passed in 1994 (UP Public Services) on providing reservations in state services for adequate representation, which mentions concessions and relaxation. The court also referred to safeguards in the Constitution under Article 16 (equality of opportunity in matters of public employment).

In cases including Pradeep Kumar (2019), G Kiran (2026), there have been challenges to various state government rules on public recruitment, where the Supreme Court in separate orders has held that those availing relaxations cannot be treated as general category candidates.

In Sajib Roy (2025), the Supreme Court said that this depends on the facts of each case, that is, if there is no rule prohibiting recruitment, reserved candidates with higher marks shall be entitled to migrate to the general merit list.