Chaya v. State of Maharashtra
“Reserved Category Candidates Who Avail TET Relaxation Can Still Migrate to Open Category Based on TAIT Merit”
TL;DR
The Supreme Court held that reserved category candidates who availed relaxation in qualifying marks in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) are entitled to migrate to the open/general category in the main selection process (TAIT) based on merit, when no express prohibition exists in the recruitment rules. The Court ruled that TET relaxation merely enables entry into the zone of consideration and does not affect inter se merit, which is determined solely by performance in TAIT. The High Court's judgment barring such migration was quashed.
The Bottom Line
If you belong to a reserved category and passed TET with relaxed qualifying marks (55% instead of 60%), you can still compete for and be selected under the open/general category in the main teacher recruitment examination (TAIT), provided you score higher than the last selected general category candidate. The relaxation in the qualifying exam only gets you through the door -- your actual merit is judged on the main exam where everyone competes equally.
Case Timeline
The journey from FIR to Supreme Court verdict
RTE Act, 2009 Enacted
The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 came into force, mandating minimum qualifications for teacher appointments under Section 23.
RTE Act, 2009 Enacted
The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 came into force, mandating minimum qualifications for teacher appointments under Section 23.
NCTE Issues TET Guidelines
NCTE issued guidelines for conducting TET under the RTE Act. Clause 9 prescribed 60% qualifying marks while allowing states to grant concessions to reserved categories.
NCTE Issues TET Guidelines
NCTE issued guidelines for conducting TET under the RTE Act. Clause 9 prescribed 60% qualifying marks while allowing states to grant concessions to reserved categories.
Maharashtra Government Resolution on TET Relaxation
Maharashtra issued a Government Resolution granting 5% relaxation in TET qualifying marks to SC, ST, DNT, OBC, and PwD candidates, reducing their pass mark to 55%.
Maharashtra Government Resolution on TET Relaxation
Maharashtra issued a Government Resolution granting 5% relaxation in TET qualifying marks to SC, ST, DNT, OBC, and PwD candidates, reducing their pass mark to 55%.
Government Resolution on Transparent Teacher Recruitment
Maharashtra issued a resolution establishing a transparent computerized recruitment process (PORTAL) for teacher recruitment, mandating TET clearance as eligibility for the aptitude test.
Government Resolution on Transparent Teacher Recruitment
Maharashtra issued a resolution establishing a transparent computerized recruitment process (PORTAL) for teacher recruitment, mandating TET clearance as eligibility for the aptitude test.
Government Resolution on TAIT-Based Selection
Maharashtra issued a resolution providing that recruitment of teachers would be based on marks obtained in the "Eligibility and Aptitude Test," superseding earlier resolutions.
Government Resolution on TAIT-Based Selection
Maharashtra issued a resolution providing that recruitment of teachers would be based on marks obtained in the "Eligibility and Aptitude Test," superseding earlier resolutions.
MSCE Issues TAIT-2022 Notification
MSCE issued notification for conducting TAIT-2022, with online examination scheduled between 22.02.2023 and 03.03.2023.
MSCE Issues TAIT-2022 Notification
MSCE issued notification for conducting TAIT-2022, with online examination scheduled between 22.02.2023 and 03.03.2023.
TAIT-2022 Examination Concluded
The TAIT-2022 online examination was completed. All candidates, regardless of category, took the same exam under identical conditions.
TAIT-2022 Examination Concluded
The TAIT-2022 online examination was completed. All candidates, regardless of category, took the same exam under identical conditions.
Merit List Published Excluding Appellants
MSCE published the merit list excluding reserved category candidates who had availed TET relaxation from the open category, despite them scoring higher than the last selected general category candidate.
Merit List Published Excluding Appellants
MSCE published the merit list excluding reserved category candidates who had availed TET relaxation from the open category, despite them scoring higher than the last selected general category candidate.
Representations Filed
Appellants submitted representations via email challenging their exclusion from the open category merit list, which received no response.
Representations Filed
Appellants submitted representations via email challenging their exclusion from the open category merit list, which received no response.
Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions
The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) dismissed the writ petitions, holding that candidates availing TET relaxation cannot migrate to the general category, relying on Pradeep Kumar.
Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petitions
The High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) dismissed the writ petitions, holding that candidates availing TET relaxation cannot migrate to the general category, relying on Pradeep Kumar.
Supreme Court Allows Appeals
The Supreme Court quashed the High Court judgment and directed that appellants who scored higher than the last selected general category candidate be included in the merit list.
Supreme Court Allows Appeals
The Supreme Court quashed the High Court judgment and directed that appellants who scored higher than the last selected general category candidate be included in the merit list.
The Story
The appellants, belonging to reserved categories (SC, ST, OBC, DNT, PwD), challenged the merit list dated 25.02.2024 prepared pursuant to Teachers Aptitude and Intelligence Test, 2022 (TAIT), conducted by Maharashtra State Council for Education (MSCE) for recruitment of teachers to schools of Zila Parishad, Municipal Corporations, Nagar Parishad and Private Managements.
Under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) prescribed minimum qualifications for teachers including passing the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET). NCTE guidelines dated 11.02.2011 fixed qualifying marks at 60% for general category, while allowing states to grant concessions to reserved categories. Maharashtra, by Government Resolution dated 13.02.2013, granted a 5% relaxation to SC, ST, DNT, OBC, and PwD candidates, reducing their qualifying marks to 55%.
The MSCE issued a notification dated 31.01.2023 for conducting TAIT-2022 between 22.02.2023 and 03.03.2023. The selection of teachers was to be based solely on marks obtained in TAIT. The appellants participated in the examination and the merit list was published on 25.02.2024. Despite securing higher marks in TAIT than the last selected general category candidate, the appellants were excluded from the open category merit list on the ground that they had availed relaxation in TET qualifying marks.
The appellants submitted representations on 26.02.2024 which went unanswered. They then filed writ petitions before the Bombay High Court (Aurangabad Bench), which dismissed them on 14.02.2025 relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Government of NCT of Delhi v. Pradeep Kumar, holding that candidates availing relaxation cannot migrate to general category. The appellants then approached the Supreme Court.
Legal Issues
Click each question to reveal the Supreme Court's answer
Arguments
The battle of arguments before the Supreme Court
Petitioner
Vihaan Kumar
Relaxation in qualifying exam cannot bar migration to open category when merit in main exam is higher
The appellants submitted that relaxation in a qualifying examination cannot bar migration to the open category when merit in the main selection examination is higher. The open category is a merit category and not a quota reserved for general candidates.
High Court mechanically applied Pradeep Kumar without appreciating the factual matrix
The appellants urged that the High Court erred in mechanically applying the decision in Pradeep Kumar without appreciating the factual matrix. The purpose of relaxation in eligibility is to create a level playing field, not to penalise merit.
Relaxations in eligibility are not benefits in recruitment/employment
Relying on multiple Supreme Court decisions, the appellants argued that relaxations given in educational qualifications, fee, or age to make a person eligible to participate in the selection process cannot be treated as availing benefits in recruitment/employment. Such benefits must have direct relation to recruitment.
No express prohibition in recruitment rules against migration
The appellants pointed out that the State Government notifications and recruitment rules for TAIT-2022 contained no express prohibition against migration of reserved category candidates to the open category.
Respondent
State of Haryana
Recruitment process followed applicable Government Resolutions
The State contended that the recruitment process was conducted strictly in accordance with applicable Government Resolutions and that the merit list was prepared correctly.
TET is a mandatory eligibility requirement and relaxation is a concession
The respondents submitted that TET is a mandatory eligibility requirement and candidates who qualified under relaxed standards cannot claim migration to the open category. Permitting such migration would amount to granting double benefit of reservation.
Migration would confer unfair advantage over general category candidates
It was urged that permitting such migration would confer an unfair advantage over general category candidates who had to meet the higher qualifying standard of 60% in TET.
Commissioner relied on Supreme Court precedent in preparing merit list
The respondents argued that the Commissioner (Education) relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Pradeep Kumar and Government of India Office Memorandum dated 04.04.2018 in preparing the merit list, which was a lawful exercise.
Court's Analysis
How the Court reasoned its decision
The Supreme Court conducted a comprehensive review of its own prior decisions on the question of migration of reserved category candidates to the open category. The Court identified that the controversy lies in a narrow compass: whether relaxation in a qualifying examination (TET) bars migration to the open category when the main selection (TAIT) is conducted on pure merit without any concession. After analyzing decisions in Jitendra Kumar Singh, Vikas Sankhala, Pradeep Kumar, Union of India v. Sajib Roy, Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust, and Union of India v. G. Kiran, the Court distilled five legal principles. Applying these to the facts, the Court found that (a) the NCTE guidelines themselves authorize the relaxation, making it not an essential eligibility condition; (b) the relaxation merely enables participation in TAIT; (c) no concession exists in TAIT where all candidates compete equally; (d) the recruitment rules contain no express bar on migration; and (e) the Pradeep Kumar decision was factually distinguishable and mechanically applied by the High Court and the Commissioner (Education). The Court concluded that the appellants, who admittedly secured higher marks than the last selected general category candidate, cannot be excluded from the open category.
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.
Para 19
First of five key legal principles extracted by the Court, establishing the foundational distinction between eligibility relaxation and selection relaxation.
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.
Para 19
Establishes that when the final selection is purely merit-based with no category-based concessions, relaxation at the qualifying stage does not taint the candidate's merit.
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.
Para 19
Places the determining factor squarely on the specific recruitment rules rather than on any blanket prohibition against migration.
Such migration shall also be permissible if the Recruitment Rules or employment notification are either silent or do not expressly prohibit it.
Para 19
Creates a presumption in favour of migration when the rules are silent, rather than requiring express permission for migration.
Relaxation in one of the conditions of securing 60% marks in qualifying examination i.e. TET only enables the reserved category candidates to participate in the main examination i.e. TAIT.
Para 28
The Court's specific finding that the 5% TET relaxation is merely an enabling provision, not a substantive advantage in the recruitment process.
The relaxation in qualifying criteria only affects eligibility and not merit and migration is permissible in the absence of any prohibition.
Para 32
The Court's conclusive observation distinguishing between eligibility (affected by relaxation) and merit (unaffected by relaxation), permitting migration in the absence of express prohibition.
The Verdict
Relief Granted
The appellants, reserved category candidates who had been excluded from the open/general category merit list despite scoring higher than the last selected general category candidate, are to be included in the merit list for teacher recruitment under the open category.
Directions Issued
- The impugned judgment of the High Court dated 14.02.2025 is quashed and set aside
- Respondents shall include in the merit list those appellants who have secured marks higher than the last selected candidate in the general category
- Applications for impleadment in various Interlocutory Applications are allowed, and petitioners therein are impleaded as appellants
- No order as to costs
Key Legal Principles Established
A concession or relaxation in a qualifying examination merely enables entry into the zone of consideration and cannot be treated as relaxation in the standard prescribed for qualifying the main selection examination.
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 selection 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 the open category.
Migration of a reserved category candidate who has availed of a concession/relaxation in a qualifying examination depends on the Recruitment Rules or the employment notification. If such Rules permit migration, it is permissible.
Migration shall also be permissible if the Recruitment Rules or employment notification are either silent or do not expressly prohibit it.
The purpose of relaxation in eligibility is to create a level playing field, not to penalise merit.
Key Takeaways
What different people should know from this case
- If you are an SC/ST/OBC/PwD candidate who passed TET with relaxed marks (55% instead of 60%), you can still compete for open/general category teacher posts based on your TAIT score.
- Availing relaxation in a qualifying exam does not permanently tag you as a "reserved only" candidate. Your merit in the main selection exam is what counts.
- If your marks in the main teacher recruitment exam (TAIT) are higher than the last selected general category candidate, you are entitled to be included in the open category merit list.
- The open/general category is a merit category, not a quota exclusively reserved for general category candidates. Anyone who scores high enough on merit can be selected under it.
- If the recruitment rules do not expressly prohibit migration from reserved to open category, you have the right to seek selection under the open category based on merit.
Legal Framework
Applicable laws and provisions
Constitutional Provisions
Articles 14, 15, 16
Constitution of India
“Article 14 guarantees equality before the law. Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, while permitting special provisions for socially and educationally backward classes. Article 16 guarantees equality of opportunity in public employment and permits reservation for backward classes.”
Relevance: The constitutional foundation for both reservation and the principle that the open category is a merit category. The Court held that excluding meritorious reserved category candidates from the open category would violate equality of opportunity.
Article 38
Constitution of India
“The State shall strive to promote the welfare of the people by securing and protecting as effectively as it may a social order in which justice, social, economic and political, shall inform all the institutions of the national life.”
Relevance: Cited in the context of the State's duty to make suitable provisions to eradicate disadvantages of socially and educationally backward classes through affirmative action measures like relaxation in qualifying marks.
Statutory Provisions
Section 23
Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009
“Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as laid down by an academic authority, authorized by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher.”
Relevance: The foundational statutory provision mandating minimum qualifications for teacher appointments, which led to the constitution of NCTE and the TET framework.
Clause 9 (Qualifying Marks)
NCTE Guidelines dated 11.02.2011
“A person who scores 60% or more in TET will be considered as TET pass. School managements may consider giving concessions to persons belonging to SC/ST, OBC, differently abled persons, etc., in accordance with their extant reservation policy.”
Relevance: The crucial provision establishing the 60% qualifying mark for TET while expressly empowering states to grant concessions to reserved categories. The Court relied heavily on this to hold that the relaxation is sanctioned by the qualifying framework itself.
Clause 3 (Relaxation in Eligibility Percentage)
Maharashtra Government Resolution dated 13.02.2013
“A relaxation of 5% in the minimum qualifying marks will be provided to candidates belonging to Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), Denotified and Nomadic Tribes (DNT), Other Backward Classes (OBC), Persons with Disabilities (PwD), and other specified categories.”
Relevance: The State Government resolution implementing the NCTE-authorized relaxation, reducing the TET pass mark from 60% to 55% for reserved categories. Central to the Court's analysis that this is merely an eligibility relaxation.
Teacher Recruitment Framework
Maharashtra Government Resolution dated 07.02.2019
“Recruitment of Education Servants will be based on the marks obtained in the "Eligibility and Aptitude Test." The Government Resolutions dated 23.06.2017 and 20.06.2018 are hereby superseded.”
Relevance: Established that the final selection is based solely on TAIT marks with no reservation-based concession in the selection process, which was a key finding supporting migration.
Related Cases & Precedents
Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.
followed(2010) 3 SCC 119
Held that relaxations in educational qualifications, fee, and age merely enable entry into the zone of consideration and cannot be treated as availing benefits in recruitment. Merit is determined by performance in the main examination and interview.
Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal
followed(2017) 1 SCC 350
Upheld TET relaxation of 10-20% as valid affirmative action and held that migration to the unreserved category was permissible where TET carried only 20% weightage, maintaining a level playing field.
Government of NCT of Delhi v. Pradeep Kumar
distinguished(2019) 10 SCC 120
Distinguished on facts. In Pradeep Kumar, the respondents neither belonged to the OBC category notified by NCT of Delhi nor fulfilled the essential eligibility condition of 60% marks in CTET. The present case involved candidates who met all eligibility criteria with NCTE-authorized relaxation.
Union of India v. Sajib Roy
distinguished2025 SCC OnLine SC 1943
Dealt with age relaxation for OBC candidates in Staff Selection Commission recruitment for Constables. Held that migration depends on specific recruitment rules. Distinguished as it did not consider the Vikas Sankhala decision.
Anjuman Ishaat-e-Taleem Trust v. State of Maharashtra
cited2025 SCC OnLine SC 912
Dealt with applicability of TET to minority education institutions and held that qualifying the TET exam is a mandatory prerequisite for recruitment and promotion of teachers.
Union of India v. G. Kiran
distinguished2026 INSC 15
Dealt with relaxation in preliminary examination of Indian Forest Service. Held that candidates who availed relaxed standards in preliminary examination were not entitled to migrate to general category. Distinguished as it did not take note of Vikas Sankhala.
Saurav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh
cited(2021) 4 SCC 542
Cited in support of the principle that concessions in fee and age to reserved category candidates merely enable entry into the zone of consideration and do not confer any advantage in the selection process.
Indra Sawhney v. Union of India
cited(1992) Supp (3) SCC 217
The landmark Mandal Commission case, cited for the proposition that open competition is a merit-based category and reserved category candidates who compete on merit should not be denied consideration under it.
Pramati Educational and Cultural Trust v. Union of India
cited(2014) 8 SCC 1
Held that TET will not apply to minority educational institutions. Referred to by the Court in the context of the broader TET framework discussion.
V. Lavanya v. State of Tamil Nadu
cited(2025) 2 SCC 1
Cited in submissions for the principle that relaxation in eligibility criteria is distinct from relaxation in the selection/merit determination process.
Watch & Learn
Video explanations in multiple languages
Frequently Asked Questions
Explore Related Cases
More case summaries on similar legal topics
Omkar Gond v. Union of India
2024 INSC 775
Disability Percentage Cannot Automatically Deny Your Dream of Becoming a Doctor
Revanasiddappa v. Mallikarjun
2023 INSC 783
The Landmark Ruling on Property Rights of Children from Void Marriages
Supriyo v. Union of India
2023 INSC 920
The Landmark Case That Defined Marriage Equality in India
Deepika Singh v. CAT
2022 INSC 745
Redefining Family: Step-Children and the Right to Maternity Leave
DISCLAIMER: This case summary is for educational and informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For advice on your specific situation, please consult a qualified advocate. JurisOptima is not responsible for any actions taken based on this information.
Facing aSimilar Situation?
Our advocates can help you understand how this judgment applies to your case.