1 

CWP-35851-2025 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 

AT CHANDIGARH 

CWP-35851-2025  

Rohit Soni and others   

.....Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Haryana and another 

.....Respondents

Reserved on: 07.07.2026 

Pronounced on: 05.08.2026

Uploaded on:05.08.2026

Whether only the operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No

Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR

Present : Mr. Sarthak Gupta, Advocate for the petitioners.  

    Mr. R.S. Budhwar, Addl. AG Haryana-State.  

Mr. Kanwal Goyal with Ms. Sheena Dahiya, Advocates for the 

respondent-Commission.  

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227

of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of

2 

CWP-35851-2025 

Certiorari quashing the impugned speaking order dated 16.09.2025

(Annexure P-1) passed by Respondent No. 3, whereby the legitimate claim

of the petitioners for consideration against General/Unreserved Category

posts has been rejected. It is further prayed for a writ in the nature of

Mandamus directing the Respondents to recommend and appoint the

petitioners against the General/Unreserved Category posts of Post Graduate

Teachers (PGTs) in their respective subjects, pursuant to Advertisements

No. 18 to 37 of 2024 (Annexure P-2), on the basis of their own merit, as the

petitioners have secured marks higher than the cut-off for the General

Category and have not availed any relaxation at any stage of the selection

process.

CONTENTIONS

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contended that the

Respondent No. 3-Commission issued Advertisements No. 18 to 37 of 2024

on 23.07.2024 (Annexure P-2), inviting applications for 3069 posts of PGTs

in various subjects. The closing date for applications was 14.08.2024. The

petitioners, being fully eligible, applied for the posts in their respective

subjects under their respective reserved categories (BC-A or BC-B).

3. It was submitted that the petitioners have not availed any

relaxation meant for reserved categories during the selection process, as all

petitioners are within the General Category age limit of 18 to 42 years and

meet the essential qualifications and standards applicable to General

Category candidates. The petitioners participated in the selection process

3 

CWP-35851-2025 

and performed meritoriously, securing marks higher than the cut-off marks

prescribed for the General Category candidates at the relevant stage

(Screening Test/SKT) in their respective subjects, as summarized in

Annexure P-3.

4. During the scrutiny of documents, the candidature of the

petitioners under their respective reserved categories was rejected by HPSC,

primarily on the ground that their reservation certificates were invalid or

issued after the cut-off date, i.e., 14.08.2024. Being aggrieved, the

petitioners, along with others, approached this Court and vide order dated

05.08.2025 (Annexure P-4) in CWP No. 20026 of 2024, the petitioners were

given the liberty to make representations to Haryana Public Service

Commission seeking consideration against General category posts as per

their merit.

5. Thereafter, the petitioners submitted representations requesting

consideration under the General Category based on their merit and non-

availment of relaxations. However, Respondent No. 3-Commission rejected

these representations vide the impugned common Speaking Order dated

16.09.2025 (Annexure P-1).

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the impugned

order is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to settled law. It is a fundamental

principle of service jurisprudence that the General/Open category is

available to all candidates based purely on merit, and if a candidate

belonging to a reserved category secures higher marks than the General

4 

CWP-35851-2025 

category cut-off without availing any relaxation, they are entitled to be

selected in the Open category, as affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 and R.K.

Sabharwal v. State of Punjab, (1995) 2 SCC 745.

7. It was further submitted that the rejection of the petitioners’

candidature under the reserved category does not disqualify them from the

Open category if they are otherwise eligible and meritorious. A Co-ordinate

Bench of this Court in CWP-8574 of 2021, titled as ‘Dinesh Kumar v. State

of Haryana’ decided on 06.09.2024 (Annexure P-5), has categorically

observed that failure to upload the requisite reserved certificate does not

negate the candidate’s right to be considered in the General category if their

marks merit the same. Similarly, in CWP No. 10839 of 2017, titled as

‘Amritpal Singh v. State of Punjab’ (Annexure P-6), another Co-ordinate

Bench has held that denying consideration in the open category to a

meritorious reserved candidate whose reserved claim failed would violate

Article 14. Reliance is also placed on the judgement of Co-ordinate Bench

of this Court in Om Roj v. Haryana Staff Selection Commission, 2022(4)

SCT 169 and the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajasthan

High Court v. Rajat Yadav, 2025 INSC 1503.

8. It was also contended that the petitioners’ claim is strongly

supported by Clause 11(vi) of the Advertisement (Annexure P-2) itself,

which clarifies that only SC/BCA/BCB candidates who are selected on the

same standards as applied to General candidates shall not be adjusted against

5 

CWP-35851-2025 

reserved vacancies, implying they must be considered against unreserved

vacancies. Since the petitioners meet the ‘same standards’ and have not

utilized any relaxations, they must be considered against unreserved

vacancies.

9. Learned counsel argued that the reliance by the respondent-

Commission on judgement of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Paramveer

Singh v. Punjab Public Service Commission, 2012(1) SCT 542 (Annexure

P-7) is wholly misplaced, as that judgment addressed the timing of

migration for Meritorious Reserved Candidates (MRCs) whose reservation

is valid, whereas the present case concerns candidates whose reservation

claim has been rejected. The arguments regarding prejudice to non-litigants

and violation of Clause 16(iii) are also untenable, as a constitutional right

based on merit cannot be denied merely because others chose not to assert

their rights.

10. Per Contra, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the

petitioners had applied in response to the Advertisement for different

subjects in BC-A and BC-B Category. During scrutiny, it was found that the

BC-A/BC-B certificates submitted by them were not in consonance with the

specific directions contained in Clause 11(ii) of the advertisement, which

required a fresh/latest certificate issued in the year 2024-2025 as per the

Government notification dated 16.07.2024. The petitioners submitted fresh

certificates that were issued after the closing date, which could not be

accepted as per Clause 6 Note 2 (iii) and Clause 16(vi) of the advertisement.

6 

CWP-35851-2025 

Therefore, the candidature of the petitioners was finally rejected.

11. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioners had filed various

writ petitions against the aforesaid rejection orders and were thereafter

provisionally interviewed in compliance of interim directions of this Court.

Subsequently, the marks secured by the petitioners were submitted in the

Court, and it was apprised that they had secured less marks than the last

selected candidate of their respective category, i.e., BC-A/BC-B. After

coming to know that they have not come within the selection zone of their

reserved category, the petitioners now want their candidature to be

considered in the general category.

12. It was also contended that the petitioners had submitted their

application forms in BC-A/BC-B Category and had participated in the

selection process as such. Their candidature was rejected as they failed to

submit their caste certificate as per terms and conditions. After having

litigated as a BC-A/BC-B Candidate, the petitioners now want to take a U-

turn and be considered in the general category, which amounts to a change

of category barred by Clause 16 (iii) of the advertisement, and the writ

petition is liable to be dismissed on the principle of estoppel.

13. Learned counsel argued that the impugned speaking order dated

16.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) rightly rejected the claim, as consideration of the

petitioners’ candidature in the General category would cause grave prejudice

to 38 candidates who had accepted the rejection of their candidature and did

not file any writ petitions.

7 

CWP-35851-2025 

14. It was further submitted that the selection process is governed

by the guidelines laid down by this Court in Paramveer Singh (supra),

wherein it has been observed that reserved category candidates are to be

migrated to General category on their own merit only at the final stage.

Adopting a different process now would amount to a change in the rules of

the game and it would adversely affect the entire selection process.

Moreover, learned counsel argued that once a candidate applies and seeks

consideration under a particular reserved category, his or her candidature is

processed and evaluated in that category throughout the selection process

until the declaration of the final result. Where the category certificate

furnished by a candidate is found to be deficient or not in conformity with

the terms of the advertisement, the candidature under the claimed reserved

category is liable to be rejected.

15. It was submitted that the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of

this Court in Dinesh Kumar (supra), relied upon by the petitioners, is

clearly distinguishable on facts. Learned counsel contended that the said

decision dealt with the migration of meritorious reserved category

candidates to the Unreserved/General Category at the final stage of the

selection process, a principle which is already being duly followed by the

respondent-Commission. Had the petitioners secured marks higher than the

last selected candidate in the Unreserved Category without availing any

relaxation or concession available to the reserved category candidates, and

had their category certificates been valid and in conformity with the terms of

8 

CWP-35851-2025 

the advertisement, they too would have been considered for migration to the

Unreserved Category in accordance with the applicable rules. However, the

present case stands on an entirely different footing. The petitioners had

submitted category certificates which were not in compliance with the

stipulations contained in the advertisement and, therefore, their claim under

the reserved category was rightly rejected.

16. Furthermore, learned counsel submitted that the procedure

adopted by the respondent-Commission has been uniformly applied to all

candidates and that a large number of candidates were rejected on the same

grounds. The petitioners were permitted to appear in the interview only by

virtue of interim orders passed by this Court, despite their category

certificates having been issued beyond the prescribed cut-off date. However,

the said interim order(s) are liable to be vacated/negated in view of the

authoritative pronouncement of Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.

1397 of 2025 titled as ‘HPSC Vs Pardeep Kumar and others’ decided on

03.11.2025.

17. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioners invited the

attention of this Court to the review applications (RA-LP-16-2026) filed in

LPA No. 1397 of 2025, wherein it was specifically contended that, even if

the applicants were held disentitled to the benefit of reservation, they were

nevertheless entitled to consideration for selection as they had secured

marks higher than the last selected candidate in the Unreserved Category.

While disposing of the said review applications, the Division Bench clarified

9 

CWP-35851-2025 

that candidates who had availed any benefit or relaxation available to a

reserved category candidate at any stage of the recruitment process would

not be entitled to migrate to the Unreserved Category. However, those

candidates who had merely applied under a reserved category, but had not

availed any reservation benefit and had secured marks above the cut-off

prescribed for the Unreserved Category, would be entitled to be considered

against the available unreserved vacancies.

OBSERVATION & ANALYSIS

18. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have

perused the record with their able assistance. This Court is of the considered

view that the issue involved in the present case is no longer res integra. In

Om Roj (supra), the petitioner had secured marks higher than those obtained

by the last selected candidate in the General Category. It was argued on his

behalf that even if his EWS certificate was held to be invalid, he could not

be denied consideration under the General Category on that ground alone.

Conversely, learned counsel for the respondents therein contended that once

the petitioner’s EWS certificate was found to be invalid, he became

ineligible for consideration both under the EWS category as well as the

General Category. Rejecting the aforesaid contention, the Coordinate Bench

categorically held that a candidate who has applied under a reserved

category but is ultimately found ineligible for reservation cannot be denied

appointment under the General Category if he has secured marks higher than

the last selected candidate in that category and has not otherwise availed any

10 

CWP-35851-2025 

benefit of reservation. The relevant observations of the Coordinate Bench

are reproduced hereinbelow:

“6. It is the basic principle of reservation, which the respondents need

to be aware and be careful in future, that first and foremost general

category seats are to be filled from the merit list as per result and

thereafter the reserved category seats are to be allocated as per the

quota assigned thereto.

7. First and foremost, once the merit list is prepared of the general

or open category and if any candidate, who has applied under

reserved category and not considered eligible, but obtained higher

marks than the last selected candidate in general category, even

then he has a right of selection and appointment under general

category. In the present case, concededly the petitioner had though

applied under EWS category and as per declaration of result he

scored more marks than the last selected candidate in general

category. Petitioner, even if not given the benefit of EWS

reservation, he was/is eligible to be considered in General Category

as he got more marks i.e. 79 marks as against the last selected

candidate in general category, who has scored 70 marks.

8. It is rather preposterous to argue, as is being canvassed by

learned State counsel that if in the scrutiny round, a candidate is

found not eligible for the reservation sought by him, then he shall

not be considered even in the open (General) Category. The same

goes against the very content and intent of Article 16 of the

Constitution.

9. No doubt, reservation is envisaged on the basis of backward class

under Sub Article (4), but in case a candidate is not found or found

entitled to the reservation, by no stretch of imagination Article 16 is

to be interpreted so as to mean that right of a candidate to be

11 

CWP-35851-2025 

considered in open general category is taken away. If that were to be

done, same would be also violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of

India, apart from Article 16(1) itself.”

(Emphasis added)

19. The aforesaid decision was upheld by the Division Bench of

this Court in LPA No.1203-2022 vide order dated 31.01.2024. Furthermore,

in Dinesh Kumar (supra), a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while relying

on the judgement in Om roj (supra), has held as follows:

“5. In a case, wherein the petitioner, who had applied under EWS

category, however despite having more marks than the last selected

candidate in the General category, had been not appointed, this Court

allowed his petition titled Om Roj v. Haryana Staff Selection

Commission and Others, CWP-2667-2022, on 28.04.2022, the

relevant paras whereof read thus:

xx xx xx

6. The aforesaid, when taken up in appeal at the hands of the State by

filing LPA-1203- 2022, came to be affirmed vide judgment dated

31.01.2024, passed in LPA-153-2022, Haryana Staff Selection

Commission v. Ankita and others, it being the lead case and the

observations therefor read thus:

xx xx

xx

7. The premise in the written statement as also the affidavits dated

24.03.2022, 04.11.2022, 11.01.2024 and 14.05.2024, for ousting the

petitioner from service that he had not uploaded the requisite

certificate at the time of filing of the application, pertaining to either

12 

CWP-35851-2025 

the Ex-serviceman or the dependent thereof, paled into

insignificance on a glance at the marks obtained by him in the

selection process.

8. Pertinently, the plea raised in the petition to drive home his claim

to a post under the General category, being the sole aspect thereof,

has been not countered in any manner whatsoever, in all probability,

owing to its genuinity and legality.

9. Merely that the petitioner being desirous of consideration of his

candidacy against the General-Ex-servicemen, being a dependant,

opted for the said category, however, even in spite of securing marks

way higher than the one appointed in the General category, would

by no stretch imply that his right against a post therein, under any

circumstances, would get eclipsed. It was imperative upon the

respondents themselves to have acceded to his legitimate claim

raised via a representation dated 25.05.2017, even prior to he having

been appointed on 19.03.2018, to be placed in the select list in the

above category.”

(Emphasis added)

20. LPA No.2930-2024 against the decision in Dinesh Kumar

(supra) also stands dismissed vide order dated 25.11.2024. In a similar vein,

another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Amritpal Singh (supra) has

observed as follows in this regard:

“9. The next aspect, which requires to be now looked into is;

"Whether a candidate belonging to a reserved category, who

has filled-up his application for a particular reserved category

but marks a wrong sub-category, can he be denied the

consideration against the open category seat, which is

13 

CWP-35851-2025 

mentioned as general category?

Answer to this question has to be given in the negative to the

extent that the candidature outrightly cannot be rejected

merely because a candidate belongs to a particular category.

As per the constitutional provisions and the intent and

purpose for which reservation has been provided therein, it is

not as if the benefit of the reservation goes to the discredit or

disadvantage of a reserved category candidate. The

petitioners, admittedly, belong to the scheduled castes

category and even if, they are not granted the benefit of

reservation because of wrong filling of the sub category, their

consideration against the general open seats cannot be denied

to them especially when they have been found to have

obtained more marks than the last selected and appointed

general category candidate. If such an action of the

respondents is permitted to be perpetuated, that would amount

to violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as

irrespective of the category to which the candidate belongs, he

has right for consideration against the open/general category

posts advertised.”

(Emphasis added)

21. Moreover, the reliance placed by learned counsel for the

respondents on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Pardeep

Kumar (supra) is wholly misconceived. The relevant factual background of

the case, as recorded by the Division Bench, is reproduced below:

“10. Since there is a variance in the facts and issues involved in the

case of the writ- petitioner, 'Neha Dhiman', the same shall be dealt

with separately. As regards all other writ-petitioners, it transpires,

14 

CWP-35851-2025 

that they applied pursuant to the advertisement claiming reservation

under BC(A)/BC(B) and EWS category. The writ petitioners, who had

claimed reservation under BC(A) and BC(B) categories, had not

appended their certificates of Non-Creamy Layer as per the

requirement mandated under the advertisement for the year 2024-

2025. Similarly, the candidates belonging to the EWS category, had

also not submitted their EWS certificates in terms of Clause 13 of the

advertisement.

11. The Commission, therefore, did not treat the applications of the

petitioners as valid applications, however, before rejecting the same,

issued a notice on 26.12.2024, the contents whereof read as under:-

xx xx

xx

12. The writ petitioners, who had not annexed their respective BC(A),

BC(B) and EWS certificates for the year 2024-2025 responded vide

their representation by claiming entitlement to the reserved category

on the strength of certificates which were issued to them for the

previous years. The writ petitioners, moreover, also annexed caste

certificates, issued to them after 12.07.2024, along with such

representation. These certificates have not been taken into

consideration by the Commission as they were issued after

12.07.2024, which was the last date fixed in the advertisement for

entertainment of the application.

13. The terms of the advertisement provided that the eligibility of a

candidate would be examined only if a candidate cleared the written

examination. All the petitioners were allowed to appear in the

examination, and they cleared it. As such the eligibility of all the writ

petitioners was examined after they cleared the written examination.

It was at this stage, that the Commission declared the writ petitioners

15 

CWP-35851-2025 

to be "not eligible" since their applications were not found in order.

The writ petitioners then approached this Court by filing Writ

Petitions, wherein, interim orders were issued permitting the

petitioners to appear in the interview. The petitioners consequently

appeared in the interview and in terms of the interim orders, posts

were kept reserved for them. The Writ Petitions ultimately came to be

allowed by the learned Single Bench vide the order impugned in these

bunch of Appeals.

14. Learned Single Judge has allowed the claim of the writ petitioners

holding them eligible in terms of the advertisement as well as the

Office Memorandum issued by the State Government on 22.03.2022.”

22. The Division Bench, while allowing the LPA, placed reliance

on a catena of judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and held that

candidates seeking the benefit of reservation under categories such as

BC(A), BC(B), or EWS are required to strictly comply with the conditions

stipulated in the advertisement, including the submission of valid category

certificates pertaining to the relevant financial year on or before the

prescribed cut-off date. It was categorically held that certificates issued after

the closing date of applications could not be taken into consideration.

Consequently, the Division Bench concluded that the writ petitioners therein

were not entitled to any relief, having failed to establish their eligibility or

rectify the deficiencies in their applications within the stipulated time.

23. However, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the

petitioners, review applications (RA-LP-16-2026) were subsequently filed

in the aforesaid case. While disposing of the same, the Division Bench, vide

16 

CWP-35851-2025 

order dated 25.05.2026, clarified that candidates who had availed any

benefit or relaxation on account of reservation would not be entitled to

migrate to the Unreserved Category. At the same time, it was held that

candidates who had merely applied under a reserved category, but had not

availed any reservation benefit and had secured marks above the cut-off for

the Unreserved Category, would be entitled to be considered against the

available unreserved vacancies. The relevant observations of the Division

Bench are reproduced hereunder:

“1. This bunch of appeals was disposed of vide composite judgment

and order dated 03.11.2025 with lead case in LPA-1397-2025. The

special leave petition filed against the judgment is also reported to

have been dismissed.

2. It is thereafter that review applications have been filed by the

applicants stating that even if the benefit of reservation is not

accorded to them, still they are entitled to selection since they have

scored marks above the marks secured by the last selected candidate

in the unreserved category. Taking note of such plea, we entertained

the review applications vide following orders passed on 09.03.2026:-

xx xx

xx

4. On 12.05.2026, we called upon the respondents to clarify as to

whether any of the review applicants had, at any stage, secured any

benefit on account of their having applied in the reserved category or

not.

5. In response to such directions, an affidavit has been filed by the

State submitting that some of the applicants have taken benefit of

17 

CWP-35851-2025 

reservation in the form of age relaxation or other conditions. The said

affidavit is taken on record.

6. Those candidates who have already availed the benefit of

reservation at any stage of recruitment would not be entitled for the

benefit of migration to unreserved category. However, those review

applicants who though have applied in the reserved category, but

have not taken any advantage of reservation and have secured

marks above the cut off meant for unreserved category, would be

accorded consideration in the unreserved category against available

seats.

7. The review applications are disposed of accordingly.

8. Those review applicants who are ultimately selected on the basis of

their merit in the unreserved category shall be accorded

consideration for appointment notionally from the date persons junior

to them have been appointed, but actual benefits would be restricted

from the date of actual appointment. Appropriate consideration in this

regard would be made within a period of 03 months from today.”

(Emphasis added)

24. Additionally, at this juncture, reference must also be made to

the judgement rendered by a two-Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court in Rajat Yadav (supra), wherein it was argued that the principle of

migration of meritorious reserved category candidates to the Unreserved

Category is attracted only at the stage of final selection and preparation of

the select list, and not at the intermediate stage of screening or shortlisting

through a preliminary examination. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme

Court categorically held that where a reserved category candidate, without

18 

CWP-35851-2025 

availing any concession or relaxation, secures marks higher than the

benchmark prescribed for the Unreserved Category in a screening or

qualifying examination, such candidate must be treated as having competed

in the Unreserved Category itself. In such a situation, no question of

migration, adjustment, or shifting from the reserved category to the

Unreserved Category arises, as the candidate’s entitlement flows solely from

merit and not from any reservation benefit. Relevant observations of the

Hon’ble Apex Court, speaking through Justice Dipankar Datta, are as

follows:

“61. The above observations were followed by His Lordship's

observation, found almost at the end of the opinion, that the "open

category is open to all, and the only condition for a candidate to be

shown in it is merit, regardless of whether reservation benefit of

either type is available to her or him.". The same have a profound

meaning, and needs to be translated into action without being

unnecessarily bothered by a term like 'migration'.

62. Drawing inspiration from the guiding light provided by Indra

Sawhney (supra) and Saurav Yadav (supra), we hold that the word

'open' connotes nothing but 'open', meaning thereby that vacant posts

which are sought to be filled by earmarking it as 'open' do not fall in

any category. One does find categories like 'open' or 'unreserved' or

'general' being widely used in course of recruitment drives but they

are meant to signify the open/unreserved vacant posts on which any

suitable candidate can be appointed, regardless of the

caste/tribe/class/gender of such candidate. For all intents and

purposes, the vacancies on posts which are notified/advertised as

open or unreserved or general, as the terms suggest, are not

reserved for any caste/tribe/class/gender and are, thus, open to all

19 

CWP-35851-2025 

notwithstanding that a cross-section of society can also compete for

appointment on vacant posts which are 'reserved' - vertical or

horizontal - as mentioned in the notification/advertisement.

xx xx

xx

64. In the context of reservation in public employment, the word

'migration' refers to a candidate claiming benefits or entitlements.

The word is used in, at least, two scenarios.

65. Scenario 1 is "Inter-State Reservation Migration" envisaging a

portability of reservation benefits. Since we are not concerned with a

scenario 1 case, we make no observation except noting two decisions

of this Court. The first is Action Committee v. Union of India (1994)

5 SCC 244 where it has been held by a Constitution Bench that a

person belonging to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in relation to

his original State, of which he is a permanent or ordinary resident,

cannot be deemed to be so in relation to any other State on his

migration to that State for the purpose of employment, education, etc.

The second is Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Sanjay

Kumar Singh (2003) 7 SCC 657 holding that if a person certified as

Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in one State migrates to another

State, then he would not be entitled to the benefit available to

Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in the State to which he has

migrated unless he belongs to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe in

that State.

66. Scenario 2, with which we are concerned, occurs when there is a

"Merit Induced Shift". Although this shift is largely referred to as

migration, we find in Saurav Yadav (supra) Hon'ble Ravindra Bhat,

J. explaining the term as adjustment of a reserve category candidate

in the unreserved category based on his/her merit.

20 

CWP-35851-2025 

67. Here, we do not see reason to agree with Mr. Gupta that any

shift or adjustment, or even migration as he contends, as such is

required where a candidate, who is also otherwise entitled to

compete and be selected for a reserved vacant post, happens to

outscore, outperform and outshine not only reserved candidates but

also general candidates and figures at the top of the list of

successful candidates prepared after a qualifying/preliminary

examination (for screening/shortlisting) solely by dint of the marks

secured by him/her in such examination (without availing any

concession/relaxation) thereby entitling him/her to participate in the

second tier of a further suitability test. Such a meritorious

candidate, notwithstanding that he/she belongs to a reserved

category, be it Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe or Other

Backward Class, must of necessity (arising out of the concept of

equality before law and equal protection of the laws in Article 14,

and extended to Article 16 in matters of public employment) be

treated as a candidate who has competed for the 'unreserved'

category and not the 'reserved' category, thereby obviating the need

for any 'migration' or, so to say, shift or adjustment.

xx xx

xx

70. Reverting to the appeals under consideration, we see no reason

to say that there has been a 'migration', in the sense of either an

adjustment or a shift being made. At the time of screening/short-

listing of candidates based on their performance in the qualifying

examination and even thereafter, initially all the aspiring candidates

including the reserved candidates should be seen as General/Open

candidates. If such a candidate, notwithstanding that he/she belongs

to a reserved category maintains excellence in standard even in the

second tier of examination (typewriting test, in this case), he/she

21 

CWP-35851-2025 

would cease to be treated as a candidate belonging to any category

and entitled to treatment as a candidate seeking appointment on a

vacant post which is categorised as General/Open. Should there be a

decline in performance in the second tier test pushing out the

candidate from the zone of consideration for appointment on posts

which are open or unreserved or general but not beyond the zone

for the reserved vacant posts, it is necessary to regard him/her as a

candidate belonging to the reserved category to which he/she

belongs, thereby paving the way for him/her to stake a claim for

consideration for appointment on an appropriate reserved vacant

post.

71. In the milieu of facts, none of the petitioning candidates has

been shown to have availed of any concession/relaxation. No law -

either rule or executive instruction - has been shown which

prevented the High Court from treating the reserved candidates as

General/Open candidates once it transpired that they outshone the

latter. Question of any migration or deriving twin benefits of

migration did not and could not arise in the circumstances.

72. If we accept the proposition advanced by the appellants, it would

not only have a detrimental impact on candidates from the

disadvantaged sections but also erode the principles enshrined in the

Constitution.”

(Emphasis added)

25. Applying the settled legal position to the facts of the present

case, the petitioners, despite having applied under their respective reserved

categories, have not availed any relaxation or concession in terms of age or

qualifications at any stage of the selection process. Admittedly, they have

secured higher marks than the last selected candidate in the

22 

CWP-35851-2025 

General/Unreserved category. The rejection of their candidature under the

reserved category merely on the ground that their reservation certificates

were issued after the cut-off date cannot operate as a bar to their

consideration against unreserved posts. The denial of consideration under

the General category in such circumstances is arbitrary, illegal, and directly

contrary to the consistent line of precedent established by this Court as well

as the Hon’ble Apex Court. Crucially, the Division Bench of this Court in

the review order dated 25.05.2026 passed in RA-LP-16-2026 has explicitly

clarified that even where reservation benefits are declined due to late or

invalid certificates, review applicants who have not taken any advantage of

reservation and have scored marks above the cut-off prescribed for the

Unreserved category are entitled to be accorded consideration against

available unreserved vacancies. Learned counsel for the respondents could

not meaningfully controvert or displace the reliance placed on the aforesaid

authoritative pronouncements.

26. Furthermore, this Court finds no merit in the argument

advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that migration or

adjustment of the petitioners from the reserved category to the Unreserved

category can only take place at the final stage of selection. In view of the

explicit law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajat Yadav

(supra), a candidate belonging to a reserved category who, without availing

any concession or relaxation, secures marks higher than the benchmark

prescribed for the Unreserved category in a screening or intermediate stage

23 

CWP-35851-2025 

must be treated as competing in the Unreserved category itself by virtue of

pure merit. In such a scenario, there is no requirement for any formal

“migration” or “adjustment” at a later stage, as the candidate’s entitlement to

compete in the Open category flows directly from the constitutional

guarantees under Articles 14 and 16. Notably, learned counsel for the

respondents failed to point out any service rules or terms of the

advertisement that explicitly prohibit such consideration for candidates who

fulfill all standards applicable to the Unreserved category.

27. This Court also finds the argument raised by the respondent-

Commission regarding prejudice to 38 non-litigant candidates whose

candidature was similarly rejected to be thoroughly unpersuasive. A

constitutional right based on open merit cannot be eclipsed or denied to

diligent litigants merely because other affected individuals chose not to

assert their legal remedies before a Court of law. Equality under Article 14

cannot be invoked in a negative sense to perpetuate an illegal order or to

deny a meritorious candidate their rightful place in the open selection list.

CONCLUSION

28. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present petition is

allowed in the following terms:

a. The impugned speaking order dated 16.09.2025 (Annexure P-1)

passed by Respondent No. 3 is hereby quashed and set aside.

b. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the

petitioners for appointment against the General/Unreserved

24 

CWP-35851-2025 

Category posts of Post Graduate Teachers (PGTs) in their

respective subjects pursuant to Advertisements No. 18 to 37 of

2024 (Annexure P-2), strictly on the basis of their merit.

c. The petitioners, if found eligible and meritorious in the Unreserved

category, shall be offered appointment with consequential notional

benefits. However, actual monetary benefits shall be given to the

petitioners only from the date of their actual joining. The

respondents are directed to complete the aforesaid exercise within

a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of

this order.

29. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall also stand

disposed of.

(HARPREET SINGH BRAR) 

      JUDGE

05.08.2026            

P.C.       

Whether speaking/reasoned. :   Yes/No 

  Whether Reportable :     Yes/No