The Supreme Court has clarified that candidates from reserved categories who qualify for teacher recruitment by availing relaxation in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) are entitled to be considered for open category vacancies if their merit in the main selection examination exceeds that of the last selected general category candidate. This landmark ruling reinforces the principle that affirmative action measures must not penalize merit and that relaxation in eligibility criteria does not equate to a concession in final selection.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellants, candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, and Persons with Disabilities, participated in the Teachers Aptitude and Intelligence Test (TAIT)-2022 conducted by the Maharashtra State Council for Education (MSCE) for recruitment to teaching positions in Zila Parishad, Municipal Corporation, Nagar Parishad, and private schools. Despite securing higher marks than the last selected candidate in the general category, they were excluded from the merit list dated 25.02.2024 on the ground that they had availed a 5% relaxation in the qualifying marks of the TET.
Key Facts
- The National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) issued guidelines on 11.02.2011 prescribing 60% as the qualifying mark for TET for general category candidates.
- Clause 9 of the NCTE guidelines permitted State Governments to grant concessions to reserved category candidates in accordance with their reservation policy.
- The Government of Maharashtra, by Government Resolution dated 13.02.2013, granted a 5% relaxation in TET qualifying marks, reducing the threshold to 55% for SC, ST, OBC, DNT, and PwD candidates.
- The TAIT-2022 examination, conducted between 22.02.2023 and 03.03.2023, was the primary selection criterion, carrying 100% weightage in final merit determination.
- The appellants secured marks higher than the cutoff for the general category but were placed only in their respective reserved categories.
- On 25.02.2024, the MSCE published the merit list excluding appellants from the open category.
- On 26.02.2024, the appellants submitted representations via email, which remained unacknowledged.
- Writ petitions were filed before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench) on 01.03.2024.
Procedural History
- 11.02.2011: NCTE issues guidelines for TET, permitting relaxation for reserved categories.
- 13.02.2013: Maharashtra Government Resolution grants 5% relaxation in TET qualifying marks for reserved categories.
- 23.08.2013: Maharashtra Government Resolution reiterates 55% qualifying mark for reserved categories.
- 23.06.2017: Maharashtra Government Resolution confirms TET as mandatory for eligibility to TAIT.
- 07.02.2019: Maharashtra Government Resolution mandates selection based solely on TAIT marks.
- 31.01.2023: MSCE issues notification for TAIT-2022, with examination conducted from 22.02.2023 to 03.03.2023.
- 25.02.2024: Merit list published excluding appellants from open category.
- 26.02.2024: Appellants submit representations via email.
- 01.03.2024: Writ petitions filed before Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench).
- 14.02.2025: High Court dismisses writ petitions, relying on Pradeep Kumar v. NCT of Delhi.
- 14517-14539/2025: Special Leave Petitions filed before Supreme Court on 28.03.2025.
- 23.03.2026: Supreme Court delivers judgment.
The Parties' Positions
Appellants: Argued that relaxation in TET was only an eligibility criterion and did not affect merit determination in TAIT. They contended that since TAIT was the sole basis for selection and no rule prohibited migration, their higher merit entitled them to open category consideration. Relied on Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal.
Respondents (State of Maharashtra): Contended that availing TET relaxation disqualified candidates from competing in the open category. Relied on Pradeep Kumar v. NCT of Delhi and Office Memorandum dated 04.04.2018, asserting that relaxation in qualifying exams bars migration.
Relief Sought
The appellants sought:
- Inclusion in the open category merit list based on merit secured in TAIT-2022.
- Quashing of the High Court’s judgment dated 14.02.2025.
- Direction to the State to revise the merit list to include them in the open category.
- Impleadment of similarly situated petitioners in related interlocutory applications.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether candidates belonging to reserved categories, who have availed relaxation in the qualifying marks of the TET, are entitled to be considered for appointment in the open category on the basis of merit secured in the main selection examination (TAIT), in the absence of any express prohibition in the recruitment rules or notification.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
Senior counsel argued that relaxation in TET marks was a permissible affirmative action under NCTE guidelines to ensure equitable access, not a concession in the selection process. The TAIT examination, which carried 100% weightage, was the sole determinant of merit. Citing Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal, counsel emphasized that relaxation in eligibility criteria merely enables entry into the zone of consideration and does not affect inter se merit. The absence of any rule prohibiting migration to the open category rendered such exclusion unlawful. The reliance on Pradeep Kumar was misplaced, as that case involved candidates who failed to meet essential eligibility criteria, unlike the appellants who fully qualified under relaxed standards.
For the Respondent
The State contended that TET was a mandatory eligibility requirement and relaxation granted under it was a benefit that could not be separated from the recruitment framework. Citing Pradeep Kumar v. NCT of Delhi and Office Memorandum dated 04.04.2018, the State argued that permitting migration would amount to double benefit - first through relaxation in TET, then through open category placement. It further submitted that the Commissioner’s communication dated 25.02.2024, which barred migration, was a lawful interpretation of existing judicial precedents.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a comprehensive review of its precedents to distinguish between relaxation in eligibility and concession in selection. It held that the NCTE guidelines of 11.02.2011 explicitly permitted States to grant relaxation in TET qualifying marks for reserved categories, thereby making such relaxation a lawful and integral part of the eligibility framework, not a benefit in the selection process.
"A concession/relaxation in a qualifying examination merely enables entry of a candidate into the zone of consideration and cannot be treated as relaxation in the standard prescribed for qualifying the written examination if such relaxation does not affect the merit which has to be determined solely on the basis of performance in the main examination and the interview, if any."
The Court emphasized that the TAIT-2022 was the sole determinant of merit, with no weightage given to TET scores in the final selection. The State’s own resolution dated 07.02.2019 confirmed that selection was based exclusively on TAIT marks. The relaxation in TET from 60% to 55% was therefore a threshold adjustment to ensure participation, not a preferential advantage.
The Court distinguished Pradeep Kumar v. NCT of Delhi, where candidates failed to meet the essential eligibility criterion of 60% in CTET and lacked valid OBC certificates from Delhi. In contrast, the appellants met the relaxed eligibility standard of 55% and were fully qualified under the State’s own rules. The Court further held that the Office Memorandum dated 04.04.2018, relied upon by the State, applied only to Central Government recruitments and was inapplicable to State-level teacher recruitment.
The Court concluded that in the absence of any express prohibition in the recruitment notification or rules, the principle of inter se merit must prevail. The High Court erred in mechanically applying Pradeep Kumar and in ignoring the binding precedents in Jitendra Kumar Singh and Vikas Sankhala, which affirmed that relaxation in eligibility does not bar migration to the open category when merit in the main examination is superior.
The Verdict
The appeals were allowed. The Supreme Court quashed the Bombay High Court’s judgment dated 14.02.2025 and directed the State of Maharashtra to include the appellants in the open category merit list, provided they secured marks higher than the last selected general category candidate in TAIT-2022. The petitioners in the interlocutory applications (I.A. Nos. 271407/2026, 61615/2026, 52532/2026, 271407/2025, and 6309/2026) were impleaded as appellants. There shall be no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Relaxation in Eligibility Does Not Bar Merit-Based Migration
- Practitioners must now argue that relaxation in qualifying exams (e.g., TET, age, fee waivers) is not a benefit in selection unless explicitly stated in recruitment rules.
- Where the main selection process is merit-based and no rule prohibits migration, reserved category candidates with higher merit must be considered for open category vacancies.
- State authorities must review existing recruitment notifications to ensure compliance with this principle.
Judicial Reliance on Precedents Must Be Context-Specific
- Pradeep Kumar applies only where candidates fail to meet essential eligibility criteria, not where relaxation is lawfully permitted.
- Office Memoranda applicable to Central Government recruitments cannot be mechanically extended to State-level processes without statutory backing.
- Courts must distinguish between eligibility thresholds and selection criteria when evaluating claims of unfair advantage.
Affirmative Action Must Not Undermine Merit
- Reservation policies are designed to create equal opportunity, not to penalize excellence.
- Merit determination must remain untainted by eligibility concessions unless the rules expressly link them.
- Educational institutions and recruitment bodies must ensure that their merit lists reflect true inter se ranking, not artificial category segregation.
