New Delhi: In a landmark reassertion of principles of affirmative action, the Supreme Court has ruled that the quota system is not a bar for reserved category candidates to be considered in unreserved positions, underlining the fact that unreserved positions should only be filled on the basis of merit irrespective of the candidate’s background. The judgement released on December 27 underlined that even the most meritorious candidates from marginalised social backgrounds have to go through intense competition at a time when public employment is on the decline, The Hindustan Times reported. The apex court’s bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice A.G. Masih observed that exclusion of those reserved category candidates who have secured higher marks than the general cut-off in a competitive exam will undermine the constitutional promise of equality. “A reserved category candidate, however meritorious he or she might be, in present times has to face stiff competition from other equally meritorious candidates having regard to the dearth of jobs in our country,” the judgement said. The bench noted that meritorious candidates from the reserved category indicate their quota at the time of application only out of anxiety to secure employment, and that can’t be used to deny their merit-based performance. “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 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 or advertisement,” said the bench.The judgment effectively put an end to the argument that reserved category students who secure jobs from the general pool on the basis of their merit gain a “double benefit”, as the bench held that all positions should remain equally accessible for applicants from marginalised social backgrounds. “The focus, therefore, must be on outcomes as much as on rules,” the judgement, which is likely to guide adjudication of future challenges to the affirmative action principle, said. The bench gave its judgement while dismissing a Rajasthan high court administration’s appeal against a 2023 high court decision to direct authorities to redraw merit lists for posts of junior judicial assistant and Grade-II clerks. The high court had come to a conclusion similar to the apex court, observing that reserved category students were wrongly excluded from the open category in spite of securing marks above the general cut-off, and that exclusion solely on the basis of their caste violated Article 14 and 16 of the constitution. “We appreciate the proactive stance of the division bench of the high court while it rectified a situation where the high court itself was found to contravene constitutional ideals,” the apex court in its December 27 judgement said, while rejecting the argument of “double benefit” for reserved category candidates as flawed. It said that the “double benefit” argument, if accepted, will lead to a situation where meritorious candidates among the reserved category applicants will only be able to stake a claim for reserved vacancies. “For a deserving reserved category candidate to be appointed on an unreserved vacant post, it is merit and merit alone that must determine suitability,” said the bench, adding that for open posts, only merit should be considered, irrespective of caste, tribe, class, or gender. The SC said that “open”, “general” or “unreserved” job vacancies are not reserved for any category and are open to all candidates, and recruitments should take place only on the basis of cut-off marks. It cited landmark cases like Indra Sawhney (1995) and Saurav Yadav (2021) to say that precedents have already been set in such matters, and that reservation does not prohibit candidates from competing in the general category. It said that by treating open positions as closed for reserved candidates erodes substantive equality and distorts the very purpose of affirmative action. Importantly, the court also asked authorities to ensure fairness within reserved categories. It said that if a reserved category student secures a rank within the open category, but does not become eligible for her preferred service, then her reserved quota should also be considered to check whether she becomes eligible for her preferred service or not. The bench said that such a system would ensure that “reservation functions as a tool of inclusion rather than a source of disadvantage”.