The Supreme Court on Monday allowed a batch of appeals filed by reserved category candidates and held that candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC/PwD categories who secured relaxation in qualifying marks in the Teachers Eligibility Test (TET) to become eligible for the main selection process are entitled to migrate to the open/unreserved category on the basis of merit secured in the Teachers Aptitude and Intelligence Test (TAIT), 2022.
A bench comprising Justices Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe set aside the common judgment dated 14.02.2025 passed by the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) and directed the respondents to include the appellants in the merit list dated 25.02.2024 who secured marks higher than the last selected candidate in the general category.
The appellants, who belonged to reserved categories and had availed the 5% relaxation in TET qualifying marks permitted under the NCTE guidelines and Maharashtra Government Resolutions, secured higher marks in TAIT than the last selected general category candidate. However, they were excluded from consideration under the open category solely on the ground that they had availed relaxation in TET.
The Court clarified that the relaxation in TET qualifying marks (60% for general category reduced to 55% for reserved categories) merely enables entry into the zone of consideration and creates a level playing field. It does not amount to any concession in the main examination (TAIT), where merit is determined solely on performance without any further relaxation. The inter se merit for appointment is evaluated uniformly for all candidates.
The bench held that the open category is a merit category and not a quota reserved exclusively for general candidates. Migration of reserved category candidates to the open category is permissible unless expressly prohibited by the Recruitment Rules or the employment notification. In the present case, neither the NCTE guidelines nor the Maharashtra Government Resolutions contained any such prohibition. The Commissioner (Education)ās communication dated 25.02.2024 and the recruitment notification dated 26.02.2024, which relied on the decision in Government of (NCT of Delhi) v. Pradeep Kumar (2019) 10 SCC 120 to deny migration, were held to be erroneous.
The Court distinguished the decision in Pradeep Kumar (supra) on the ground that in that case the candidates did not fulfil the essential eligibility criteria at all. It relied on earlier decisions in Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. (2010) 3 SCC 119 and Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal (2017) 1 SCC 350, where migration was permitted when relaxation was limited to eligibility and did not affect the ultimate merit determination.
The appeals were allowed with a direction to prepare a revised merit list and consider the appellants for appointment under the open category. There shall be no order as to costs.
Cause Title: Chaya & Ors. Etc. v. The State of Maharashtra & Anr. Etc.
Citation: 2026 INSC 277 (Civil Appeal Nos. __ of 2026 @ SLP (C) Nos. 14517-14539 of 2025)
Click HERE for full JUDGMENT
Lawcutor 