Relaxation in qualifying examination marks does not bar meritorious reserved candidates from migrating to the open category.

The appellants, belonging to reserved categories, participated in the Teachers Aptitude and Intelligence Test, 2022 (TAIT) for teacher recruitment in Maharashtra

To be eligible for TAIT, candidates had to pass the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET). Per NCTE guidelines and State Government Resolutions (GRs) dated 13.02.2013 and 23.08.2013, general category candidates required 60% to pass TET, while reserved category candidates were granted a 5% relaxation (55% qualifying mark)

Although the appellants secured higher marks in the TAIT examination than the last selected general category candidate, they were excluded from the open/unreserved merit list dated 25.02.2024

The State justified this exclusion based on a communication dated 25.02.2024, asserting that candidates who availed relaxation in the qualifying TET could not migrate to the open category

The High Court of Bombay dismissed the appellants' writ petitions, relying on Government of NCT of Delhi v. Pradeep Kumar (2019) to hold that such migration would confer an unfair advantage

Whether reserved category candidates who avail of relaxation in a qualifying examination (TET) to become eligible for the main selection process (TAIT) are entitled to migrate to the open/unreserved category based on merit secured in the main examination.

The Court applied the principle that relaxation in a qualifying examination merely enables entry into the "zone of consideration" and does not affect inter se merit in the final selection, as established in Jitendra Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.

Relaxation in a qualifying examination merely enables entry into the "zone of consideration" and does not affect inter se merit in the final selection, as established in Vikas Sankhala v. Vikas Kumar Agarwal.

The Court further clarified that migration is permissible unless expressly prohibited by Recruitment Rules or employment notifications

The Court distinguished Government of NCT of Delhi v. Pradeep Kumar, noting it applies only where candidates fail to fulfill essential eligibility criteria

The Court also referenced Union of India v. Sajib Roy, which holds that migration depends on the specific statutory scheme or the silence thereof

The Court reasoned that TET is a mandatory prerequisite/eligibility test, whereas TAIT is the competitive examination used to determine final merit

Under Clause 9 of the NCTE guidelines, states are expressly permitted to grant concessions in TET scores

The Court observed that the 5% relaxation in TET merely created a "level playing field" by allowing reserved candidates to compete in the main TAIT examination, where no relaxation was granted and all candidates were evaluated on uniform standards

The Court found the High Court’s reliance on Pradeep Kumar misplaced; in that case, candidates were ineligible because they lacked valid OBC certificates for the specific territory and failed the general qualifying standard, whereas here, the relaxation was a valid part of the eligibility framework

Since the recruitment notification for TAIT-2022 did not expressly prohibit migration, and the appellants were more meritorious in the final exam, their exclusion was deemed unlawful

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals and quashed the High Court judgment dated 14.02.2025

The respondents were directed to include the appellants (and impleaded petitioners with identical claims) in the merit list based on their higher marks