In a recent landmark decision, the Supreme Court issued a profound directive regarding the treatment of meritorious candidates from reserved categories who opt not to avail themselves of reservation benefits. Their verdict resounds with the principle of meritocracy, stating that such candidates should be considered akin to their counterparts from the general category based solely on their academic performance.
The bench, led by Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, upheld the ruling of the M.P. High Court, emphasizing the potential detrimental effects on other deserving candidates within the reserved categories if meritorious candidates, despite eschewing reservation benefits, continued to be categorized within those groups.
The judgment pointedly addressed Rule 4(3)(d)(III) of the Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015, which was deemed prejudicial to reservation category candidates. Under this rule, even outstanding candidates from reserved categories who did not utilize reservation benefits were automatically grouped within those categories, thereby occupying slots that might have otherwise been rightfully filled by deserving candidates lower down in the merit list.
The court’s stance was fortified by precedent, notably referencing the case of Saurav Yadav and others v. State of U.P. and others. Here, the court affirmed the principle that candidates from vertical reservation categories should have the opportunity to compete in the ‘open category’ based on their own merit, without their selection impinging upon reserved quotas.
A pivotal change was brought about by an amendment to Rule 4 of the Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015. This amendment altered the timing of adjustment and segregation of meritorious candidates, now only occurring at the final selection stage rather than prematurely at the preliminary examination stage.
In endorsing the decision of the State of M.P. to revert to the original Rule 4, the court underscored the imperative of ensuring fair treatment for reservation category candidates. This restoration facilitated a process where deserving candidates from these categories could be accurately identified alongside their unreserved counterparts from the outset.
The legal deliberations were exhaustive, involving counsels from both petitioner and respondent sides. Their meticulous arguments reflected the gravity of the issue at hand and contributed to the comprehensive understanding reached by the court.
In essence, the Supreme Court’s ruling champions the essence of fairness and meritocracy in the selection process, advocating for equal opportunities and just treatment for all candidates, regardless of their demographic categorization.
