The Supreme Court on 23 March 2026 set aside a Bombay High Court decision and held that candidates belonging to the Reserved Category may be considered for General Category posts if they achieve a higher merit in the final selection stage, provided the applicable Recruitment Rules do not expressly prohibit such migration. Key Developments Bench of Justices P.S. Narasimha and Alok Aradhe overturned the Aurangabad bench judgment that barred migration of reserved candidates who availed relaxation in the qualifying exam. The Court observed that the 13‑02‑2013 Government Resolution framing the Recruitment Rules contains no prohibition on migration. Consequently, the respondents were ordered to include the appellants who scored at least 30 marks above the last selected general‑category candidate. Important Facts of the Case The dispute arose in Maharashtra’s teacher‑recruitment process under the Right to Education framework. Candidates first cleared the TET , followed by the TAIT . General‑category aspirants needed 60% in TET, while reserved candidates received a 5% relaxation , qualifying with 55%. Several reserved candidates, after availing the 5% relaxation, outperformed the last selected general‑category candidate in TAIT. The High Court denied their inclusion in the open‑category merit list, prompting the Supreme Court appeal. Legal Principles Clarified (i) A relaxation in a qualifying exam only enables entry into the selection pool; it does not affect merit determined in the main exam and interview. (ii) The final selection must be based on inter‑se merit; any concession is confined to the qualifying stage. (iii) If a candidate fails to meet essential eligibility, migration to an open seat is barred. (iv) Migration is permissible when the Recruitment Rules or notification allow it. (v) Even when the rules are silent, migration is allowed in the absence of an express prohibition. UPSC Relevance This judgment is vital for GS‑2 (Polity) and GS‑3 (Education) preparation. It illustrates how constitutional principles of equality, reservation, and merit interact with statutory recruitment frameworks. Aspirants should note the distinction between eligibility relaxation and merit‑based selection, a recurring theme in questions on affirmative action and public‑sector recruitment. Way Forward State governments should review their Recruitment Rules to ensure clarity on migration provisions. Reserved‑category candidates must secure merit in the main examination to claim open‑category seats. Legal practitioners and policymakers should cite this precedent when drafting or amending reservation‑related notifications.