Supreme Court: In a batch of civil appeals filed by appellants, belonging to reserved categories, challenging the merit list of the Teachers Aptitude and Intelligence Test (TAIT-2022), the controversy before the Court was whether candidates belonging to reserved categories, who had availed relaxation in a qualifying examination for eligibility, could migrate to the open category on the basis of merit secured in the main selection examination. The Division Bench of Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Alok Aradhe,* JJ., held that reserved category candidates who secured higher marks than the last selected candidate in the open category were entitled to be considered for the open category, even if they had availed relaxation in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) qualifying marks. Such relaxation affects only the eligibility criteria and not the merit, and in the absence of an express prohibition in the recruitment rules, migration to the open category is permissible.
Factual Matrix
The instant appeals arose from a common judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 14 February 2025, which dismissed writ petitions challenging the merit list prepared for recruitment of teachers through the Teachers Aptitude and Intelligence Test (TAIT)-2022 conducted by the Maharashtra State Council for Education (MSCE).
The Maharashtra State Council for Education issued a Notification dated 31 January 2023 for conducting TAIT-2022. Candidates were required to possess the qualifications prescribed under the Government Resolutions and to have passed TET. The appellants participated in the examination and secured marks higher than the last selected candidate in the general category.
However, the merit list published on 25 February 2024 excluded the appellants from consideration in the open category on the ground that they had passed TET with relaxation in qualifying marks available to reserved category candidates. Representations submitted by the appellants did not yield any response, following which writ petitions were filed before the High Court challenging the merit list.
The High Court held that passing TET was a mandatory prerequisite forming an integral part of the recruitment framework, and that candidates who had availed relaxation could not be permitted to compete in the open category. Relying on State (NCT of Delhi) v. Pradeep Kumar, (2019) 10 SCC 120, the High Court held that permitting such migration would confer an unfair advantage and dismissed the writ petitions.
Issue for Determination
Whether a candidate belonging to a reserved category who had availed relaxation in the qualifying examination (TET) was entitled to be considered in the open category on the basis of higher merit obtained in the main selection examination (TAIT), in the absence of an express prohibition in the Recruitment Rules?
Statutory Framework
At the outset, the Court noted that the recruitment of teachers is governed by the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, which provides that only persons possessing the minimum qualifications prescribed by the academic authority authorised by the Central Government are eligible for appointment as teachers. The National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) was notified as the competent authority to prescribe such qualifications, and by Notification dated 23 August 2010 it mandated passing the TET as the minimum qualification for appointment of teachers for Classes 1 to 8.
The Court stated that the NCTE issued guidelines dated 11 February 2011 prescribing qualifying marks in TET, while permitting relaxation for candidates belonging to reserved categories in accordance with the reservation policy. The State of Maharashtra issued several Government Resolutions from time to time regulating teacher recruitment, eligibility, reservation implementation, conduct of examinations and preparation of merit lists. Under the scheme, passing TET was a condition of eligibility, whereas the final selection for recruitment of teachers was based on marks obtained in the Eligibility and Aptitude Test (TAIT).
Judicial Precedents Considered
The Court examined several earlier decisions to determine the legal position. In Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 119, it was held that concessions such as age or fee relaxation only enable entry into the zone of consideration and do not affect merit determined in the selection process. In Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal, (2017) 1 SCC 350, it was held that relaxation in TET qualifying marks does not amount to concession in the recruitment process where the final merit is determined on uniform standards.
Further, in Pradeep Kumar (supra) migration to the open category was disallowed where the candidates did not fulfil essential eligibility conditions. In Union of India v. Sajib Roy, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1943 and Union of India v. G. Kiran, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 22, the Court held that migration depends upon the Recruitment Rules and is impermissible where relaxed standards directly affect eligibility or where rules prohibit migration.
From the aforesaid decisions, the Court culled out following legal principles:
-
“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.
-
A relaxation or concession in the qualifying examination merely creates a level playing field where no concession or relaxation is granted in the ultimate selection and the same is solely made on the basis of inter se merit.
-
If a candidate belonging to a reserved category, does not fulfil the essential eligibility criteria prescribed for a selection, he/she cannot be permitted to migrate to an open category.
-
Migration of a reserved category candidate who has availed of a concession/relaxation in qualifying examination depends on the Recruitment Rules or the employment notification. If such Recruitment Rules or employment notification permits such migration, the same is permissible.
-
Such migration shall also be permissible if the Recruitment Rules or employment notification are either silent or do not expressly prohibit it.”
Court’s Analysis
The Court observed that the NCTE Guidelines permitted relaxation in TET qualifying marks for reserved category candidates, and the Government of Maharashtra had granted a relaxation of 5 per cent in qualifying marks. Thus, a candidate belonging to the general category had to secure 60 per cent marks to pass TET whereas a candidate belonging to the reserved category or a differently abled person had to secure 55 per cent marks. It was stated that passing TET with relaxed marks merely enabled reserved category candidates to participate in the main examination and did not confer any advantage in the final selection.
The Court further noted that the Government Resolution dated 7 February 2019 provided that the selection list would be based on marks obtained in TAIT, and no relaxation was granted in the main examination. Therefore, merit was determined solely based on TAIT marks, and the relaxation in TET affected only eligibility, not merit.
The Court also found that the recruitment notification did not contain any express prohibition against migration of reserved category candidates to the open category. The restriction relied upon by the authorities was introduced through a communication issued on the date of publication of the merit list, based on an incorrect interpretation of earlier judgments, which could not override the Recruitment Rules.
The Court held that the decision in Pradeep Kumar (supra) was inapplicable because in that case the candidates did not fulfil essential eligibility conditions, whereas in the present case the relaxation itself was part of the statutory scheme.
Court’s Decision
The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, and directed the respondents to include those appellants who had secured marks higher than the last selected candidate in the general category in the merit list. It was further directed that similarly situated applicants be treated alike, and the impleadment applications filed by such candidates were allowed.
[Chaya v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 457, decided on 23-3-2026]
*Judgment by Justice Alok Aradhe
