Supreme Court Clarifies Rules General Vs. Reservation Category Appointments

Rules General Vs. Reservation Category: The Supreme Court has delivered two significant verdicts clarifying the scope and meaning of ‘General’ or ‘Open’ category vacancies in public recruitment. Through rulings delivered on December 19, 2025 and January 6, 2026, the top court reaffirmed that reserved category candidates who secure selection purely on merit, without availing any relaxation or concession, must be included in the General list.

At the same time, it ruled that candidates who avail any relaxation, including at the preliminary stage, cannot claim unreserved posts. The judgments, arising from cases in Rajasthan and Karnataka, reiterate long-settled principles laid down in earlier landmark rulings, including Indira Sawhney, and provide clarity on merit, equality, and reservation in government employment. Explore the article to discover each and every detail.

Key Takeaways on Supreme Court Reservation Verdicts

• General or open category vacancies are open to all candidates, irrespective of caste, class, tribe, or gender
• Reserved category candidates can be included in the General list only if they do not avail any relaxation
• Any relaxation taken at any stage disqualifies a candidate from claiming unreserved posts
• Mentioning a reserved category in an application does not automatically entitle a candidate to a reserved post
• The Supreme Court rejected claims of ‘migration’ and ‘double benefit’ in such cases

Supreme Court on Meaning of General and Open Category

The Supreme Court clarified that terms such as ‘open’, ‘unreserved’, or ‘general’, widely used in recruitment notifications, signify vacancies that are open to all eligible candidates. The court stated that these posts are not reserved for any caste, tribe, class, or gender and can be filled by any suitable candidate purely on merit.

The top court emphasised that such vacancies remain open notwithstanding the fact that candidates from reserved categories may also compete for posts specifically earmarked as reserved, whether vertically or horizontally, as notified in recruitment advertisements.

It further clarified that merely indicating one’s reserved category status in an application form does not automatically qualify a candidate for appointment to a reserved vacancy. Such disclosure only enables the candidate to be considered among reserved category candidates based on inter se merit.

Rajasthan Case: Inclusion of Meritorious Reserved Candidates

The Rajasthan case arose from a recruitment process initiated by the Rajasthan High Court in August 2022 for 2,756 posts of Junior Judicial Assistant and Clerk Grade-II in the High Court, district courts, and allied institutions.

Also Read: Supreme Court का ऐतिहासिक फैसला: सभी हाई कोर्ट जजों को समान पेंशन

The selection process comprised:

• A written examination of 300 marks
• A computer-based typewriting test of 100 marks

Only candidates securing the prescribed minimum marks in the written examination, limited to five times the number of vacancies category-wise, were shortlisted for the typewriting test.

After the written examination results were declared in May 2023, it emerged that the cut-off marks for several reserved categories, including SC, OBC, MBC, and EWS, were higher than the cut-off for the General category.

As a result, certain reserved category candidates who had scored more than the General category cut-off but less than the cut-off prescribed for their respective categories were excluded from the shortlist for the typewriting test.

These candidates challenged the method, arguing that it treated the General category as an exclusive compartment for unreserved candidates and violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

High Court and Supreme Court Rulings in Rajasthan Case

The Rajasthan High Court ruled that while category-wise shortlisting was permissible, meritorious reserved category candidates who secured marks higher than the General category cut-off, without availing any special concession, were entitled to be included in the open category at the shortlisting stage itself.

Also Read:  UPSC Releases CDS (1) 2025 Final Result: 535 Candidates Shortlisted, Download Result Here

The High Court directed:

• Preparation of the General or open category list strictly on merit
• Preparation of reserved category lists after excluding candidates already accommodated in the open category
• Revision of merit lists and an opportunity for wrongly excluded candidates to appear in the typewriting test

The Supreme Court bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Augustine George Masih, in a December 2025 verdict, dismissed appeals filed by the Rajasthan High Court administration and its registrar.

The top court rejected arguments that such inclusion amounted to granting a ‘double benefit’ or ‘migration’ to reserved category candidates.

Advocate Kartik Seth, who appeared in the case, told NDTV that the judgment did not lay down any new principle of law but reiterated the settled position that meritorious reserved category candidates are entitled to be considered in the General list if they do not avail any relaxation.

Karnataka Case: Relaxation Bars Claim to General Vacancy

The Karnataka case arose from the 2013 Indian Forest Service (IFS) examination, conducted in two stages: the Preliminary Examination, followed by the Main Examination and an interview.

In the preliminary examination:

• General category cut-off was 267 marks
• Relaxed cut-off for SC candidates was 233 marks

G Kiran, an SC candidate, qualified with 247.18 marks by availing the relaxed cut-off. Antony S Mariyappa, a General category candidate, qualified with 270.68 marks on the general cut-off.

In the final merit list:

• Kiran ranked 19
• Antony ranked 37

Afterwards during the allocation, there was a General vacancy but no SC vacancy. The Centre allotted the General Insider post to Antony and allocated Kiran to the Tamil Nadu cadre.

Also Read:  Lok Sabha Clears Waqf Amendment Bill 2025 – What You Need To Understand 

Kiran challenged the decision before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Karnataka High Court, both of which ruled in his favour on the ground that he had secured a higher final rank.

Supreme Court Overturns Karnataka High Court Verdict

Allowing the Centre’s appeal, a bench of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Vijay Bishnoi set aside the Karnataka High Court’s decision.

The judgment authored by Justice Maheshwari held that the IFS examination is a single, integrated selection process comprising two mandatory stages. Since qualifying the Preliminary Examination is a prerequisite for entry into the Main Examination, any relaxation availed at the preliminary stage cannot be ignored at later stages.

The court observed that once a reserved category candidate avails any relaxation, such a candidate cannot be considered for unreserved vacancies.

The Supreme Court referred to earlier rulings, including Union of India v. Sajib Roy, reiterating that unless rules explicitly permit otherwise, candidates availing relaxation in age, cut-off, or other criteria cannot be considered for open category posts.

Equality and Merit Reaffirmed

Both verdicts, though arising from different factual situations, echo the long-standing principles of equality and merit laid down in the Indira Sawhney judgment. The Supreme Court has clarified that open category vacancies remain open to all purely on merit, while simultaneously reaffirming that relaxation and concession carry legal consequences.

By rejecting arguments on ‘migration’ and ‘double benefit’, the court has provided clarity to recruitment authorities and candidates alike, ensuring consistency, transparency, and adherence to constitutional principles in public employment.

Equality, Duty, and Divine Accountability

Beyond constitutional principles and legal frameworks, the discussion on merit and fairness also resonates with a deeper spiritual understanding of equality and responsibility. As explained by Tatvdarshi Saint Rampal Ji Maharaj, in the eyes of the Supreme God, all living beings are equal. There is no division based on caste, religion, or social status. He teaches

‘Our Race is Living Being, Mankind is Our Religion

Hindu Muslim Sikh Isaai, There is No Separate Religion’

According to His spiritual Knowledge, the opportunities and positions a person attains in life, including employment, are connected to destiny shaped by past deeds — sins and virtues. This destiny is influenced by true worship and righteous conduct. He further explains that when sincere devotion is practiced, the Supreme God can even correct shortcomings in one’s destiny. 

Spiritual awareness also instils moral responsibility: when individuals work with accountability and respect for God, abiding by His Constitution as well, they perform their duties honestly, treat subordinates with fairness, and see every person as a child of God, deserving justice and dignity.

For more information visit our

• Website:www.jagatgururampalji.org
• YouTube: Sant Rampal Ji Maharaj
• Facebook: Spiritual Leader Saint Rampal Ji
• X (Twitter): @SaintRampalJiM

FAQs on Supreme Court Verdicts on Reservation and General Category