Supreme Court On Reservation: Merit-Selected Reserved Candidates Can Get Better Posts Than Lower-Scoring Candidates

The Supreme Court has reiterated an important principle on researvation and allocation of goverment post. Observing that a reserved-category candidate selected in the open category on merit can be considered for a better post under the reserved category if they have scored higher marks than a reserved-category candidate already allotted that post, as per Bar & Bench report.

A bench of Justice MM Sundresh and Justice Prasanna B Varale said the legal position on the issue is settled and has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in several judgments, including the Constitution Bench ruling in Union of India v. Ramesh Ram, reported in (2010) 7 SCC 234.

The observation was made while hearing a batch of petitions related to the allocation of services to reserved-category candidates who were selected on open merit in the 6th Combined Civil Services Examination conducted by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (JPSC).

What the Supreme Court said

According to the Bar & Bench report, the court held that a candidate belonging to a reserved cateogry who is otherwise eligible and has been placed in the open category on merit cannot be denied a better post under the reserved category merely because they were selected against an open seat.

In simple terms, if a reserved-category candidate scores high enough to qualify in the open category without relying on a reservation-related relaxation, and their marks are higher than those of another reserved-category candidate occupying a preferred post, the higher-scoring candidate can claim consideration for that better reserved-category post.

The bench referred to the law laid down in Union of India v. Ramesh Ram and said that there was no difficulty in holding that an eligible reserved-category candidate fitted into the open category is entitled to a better reserved post than a reserved-category candidate who has secured fewer marks.

Jharkhand service allocation case

The dispute before the Supreme Court arose from a judgment of the Jharkhand High Court concerning service allocation following the 6th Combined Civil Services Examination.

The petitioners had argued that although they had secured higher marks and had been selected in the open category, they were allotted other services. At the same time, some reserved-category candidates with lower marks were allotted the Jharkhand Administrative Service, which was their preferred service.

The Jharkhand High Court had earlier upheld the decision of a Single Judge who refused to direct the State and JPSC to allot the petitioners the Administrative Service.

Marks and services of petitioners

Four candidates were before the High Court in the matter:

Chandan, a Scheduled Caste candidate, secured 611 marks out of 1,150 and was allotted Jharkhand Information Service.

Sanjay Kumar Mahto, an EBC-I candidate, secured 621 marks and was allotted Jharkhand Finance Service.

Gautam Kumar, an EBC candidate, secured 619 marks and was also allotted Jharkhand Finance Service.

Kumar Avinash, a Scheduled Caste candidate, secured 606 marks and was allotted Jharkhand Planning Service.

None of the four candidates was allotted the Jharkhand Administrative Service.

The last selected candidate in the open category for the Administrative Service had secured 631 marks.

The cut-offs for other services were 679 for Police Service, 614 for Finance, 614 for Education, 613 for Cooperative, 613 for Social Security, 611 for Information and 600 for Planning Service.

Why the candidates challenged the allocation

The dispute centred on Clause 8 of the recruitment advertisement, which was based on the State Government's policy for candidates belonging to reserved categories.

Under the provision, a reserved-category candidate who secured marks at par with an open-category candidate could be treated as an open-category candidate if the candidate had not been selected under the reserved category after availing any relaxation.

The petitioners argued that their treatment as open-category candidates had effectively put them at a disadvantage. According to them, reserved-category candidates who had scored fewer marks were able to secure the more desirable Administrative Service, while they were allotted other services.

The High Court, however, found that the petitioners had secured marks at par with the last selected open-category candidates in the respective services and had the required educational qualifications. It therefore held that their treatment as open-category candidates and their service allocation under Clause 8 was in accordance with the applicable policy.

Supreme Court seeks clarification on relaxation

During the hearing, the respondents argued that the petitioners had actually availed some form of relaxation. The Supreme Court, however, noted that it had not found material substantiating that claim.

The bench has now given the State and JPSC six weeks to file an affidavit clarifying whether the petitioners had availed any relaxation while securing selection.

The Court has also flagged another related question: what happens to an unreserved candidate if a reserved-category candidate who had moved to the unreserved category is later shifted back to a reserved post of their choice. The Supreme Court has listed the matter for further hearing on August 25, 2026.

Published on: Saturday, August 22, 2026, 02:17 PM IST