P&H HC Rejects EWS Candidate’s General-Category Claim Despite Higher Final Marks: She Cleared Screening Only In EWS Category

The petitioner applied for Assistant Professor (College Cadre)—History under the EWS category.

The three-stage selection comprised a screening test, a Subject Knowledge Test and an interview; only the latter two stages determined final merit.

The petitioner was shortlisted for the later stages as an EWS candidate, not against the General/Unreserved (UR) posts, and secured 51.84 final marks.

She challenged the result after a lower-scoring candidate was recommended against a UR post, seeking consideration against that category.

The High Court dismissed the petition.

Article 226 of the Constitution provides the basis for the petitioner’s writ challenge.

Under Saurav Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2021) 4 SCC 542, reserved-category candidates may be selected against open-category posts on merit, provided they have not availed a disqualifying special benefit.

Rajasthan High Court v. Rajat Yadav, 2025 INSC 1503, recognizes that a reserved-category candidate who qualifies the screening stage on the same standard as general candidates competes for the unreserved category.

Conversely, Union of India v. G. Kiran, 2026 INSC 15, holds that a candidate who requires a relaxed standard at a threshold examination to proceed cannot later claim selection on the general standard merely by outperforming candidates in later stages.

This Court applied that approach in Kartik Saini v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 38944 of 2025, and Kiran Bala v. State of Haryana, CWP No. 7873 of 2026, treating a screening test as a substantive gateway even where its marks do not count toward final merit.

Chaya v. State of Maharashtra, 2026 INSC 277, concerned relaxation in a separate eligibility qualification rather than a stage of the recruitment process and was distinguished.

The screening test was the first stage of this selection and determined which candidates could proceed to the Subject Knowledge Test; only candidates within the prescribed shortlist could advance.

The petitioner was not among those shortlisted or retained against UR posts at that stage, but entered the later stages as an EWS candidate.

Her higher final marks and lack of relaxation in age, experience or other eligibility conditions did not alter that fact: she had obtained access to the later stages through the EWS standard.

The nine non-General-category candidates recommended against UR posts had, unlike the petitioner, been retained against UR posts at the screening stage.

The Court therefore held that the screening-stage benefit prevented her from claiming a UR post on the basis of later-stage marks alone.

It found no basis to disturb the result dated 16 February 2026 and dismissed the writ petition; pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.