Justice M.M. Sundresh, Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, Supreme Court
Reserved Category Candidate Scoring Above General Cut-Off Must Be Treated As Qualified Against Open Or Unreserved Vacancies: Supreme Court
|The Apex Court reiterated that a candidate belonging to a reserved category who secures marks higher than the cut-off prescribed for the general category must be treated as having been selected against an open or unreserved post, and not against a reserved vacancy.
The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that candidates belonging to reserved categories who secure marks higher than the cut-off for the general category are entitled to be treated as having qualified against open or unreserved vacancies.
The Court held that such candidates cannot be adjusted against reserved posts merely on account of their social category.
The Court was hearing appeals filed by the Airports Authority of India challenging a judgment of the Kerala High Court, which had interfered with the selection process and granted relief to candidates who were denied appointment despite having secured marks above the general category cut-off.
A Bench comprising Justice M.M. Sundresh and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma, while relying on the Apex Court’s ruling in Rajasthan High Court v. Rajat Yadav (2025), reiterated that “a candidate belonging to reserve category who has scored marks higher than the cut off marks for the General Category is to be treated as having qualified against an open or unreserved vacant post”.
Background
The dispute arose from a recruitment process conducted by the Airports Authority of India for appointments to certain posts. The selection was based on merit, subject to reservation norms applicable to different categories.
Certain candidates belonging to reserved categories had secured marks higher than the cut-off prescribed for the general category. However, they were not treated as having qualified against unreserved vacancies and were instead either adjusted against reserved posts or denied appointment.
Aggrieved by this approach, the affected candidates approached the Kerala High Court, contending that the selection process violated the settled principle that merit candidates from reserved categories who surpass the general cut-off must be treated as unreserved selectees. The High Court accepted the contention and granted relief, leading to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observation
The Supreme Court examined the legal position governing the interplay between merit and reservation in public employment. The Court observed that it is a well-settled proposition of law that reservation is intended to provide an opportunity to candidates who may otherwise be unable to compete on an equal footing, and not to disadvantage those who secure selection on merit.
The Court reiterated that when a candidate belonging to a reserved category secures marks higher than the cut-off prescribed for the general category, such a candidate must be treated as having qualified against an open or unreserved vacancy. The Court held that adjusting such candidates against reserved posts would amount to penalising merit and would distort the reservation framework.
The Bench noted that this principle has consistently been recognised to ensure that reservations do not encroach upon merit-based selections and that unreserved vacancies are filled purely based on merit, irrespective of the candidate's social category.
“Appellant Authority were justified in migrating the candidates belonging to reserve category to the unreserved list on the basis of their own merit as they have scored higher marks than the General category candidates”, the Court concluded.
Conclusion
Upholding the application of this settled principle, the Court allowed the appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 10686 of 2020 and dismissed the connected appeal.
Cause Title: Airports Authority of India & Ors. v. Sham Krishna B & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 69)
Appearances
Appellants: Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General; A. Karthik, AOR; Neetica Sharma, Advocate; Tavinder Sidhu, Advocate; M.V. Kini & Associates, AOR
Respondents: Govind Manoharan, Advocate; Smrithi Suresh, Advocate; Sugam Agrawal, Advocate; Veera Mahuli, Advocate; Nanditha S, Advocate