“Two Chances for Some, One Chance for Others: Rethinking Fairness in Open Category Selection”
- Rajangam Jayaprakash
- Jan 7
- 3 min read
I respectfully disagree with the view that a reserved-category candidate who scores higher marks can automatically take a general (open) category seat, even if that candidate reached the exam stage using relaxations that were not available to general candidates.
My disagreement is not with reservation itself, which is a constitutionally accepted policy. The disagreement is with how this rule works in practice, and how it can unfairly disadvantage candidates who compete under stricter rules from start to finish.
For the specific judgement please refer: https://www.scobserver.in/supreme-court-observer-law-reports-scolr/rajasthan-high-court-v-rajat-yadav18466/
1. The Open Category Is Not a Free-for-All
The open (general) category has always meant competition without special concessions:
no extra age limit,
no lower qualifying marks,
no relaxed eligibility conditions.
When a candidate enters the competition using relaxed rules and then takes a general seat based only on final marks, the system ignores how that candidate got there.
This is like allowing two runners to start from different points and then declaring the winner based only on who crossed the finish line first.
2. Marks Alone Do Not Tell the Full Story of Merit
Merit is not just about the final number on a score sheet.
Consider this real-world type situation:
Scenario: Double Advantage
A general candidate must clear every stage with no relaxation.
A reserved candidate:
qualifies at a lower cut-off,
gets extra years of age,
may have more attempts.
If both score nearly the same in the final exam, calling them “equal” ignores the fact that one had more time, more chances, and easier entry conditions.
Merit cannot be separated from the rules under which it was achieved.
3. Unequal Risk: One Candidate Has Two Chances, the Other Has One
Under the interpretation accepted by the Court:
A reserved candidate has two possible paths:
Compete for a general seat.
Fall back on a reserved seat if unsuccessful.
A general candidate has only one path:
compete under the toughest conditions with no backup.
Scenario: Shrinking General Seats
Even if 60 seats are marked as “open”, many of them get filled by candidates who also retain reserved protection.In effect, general candidates compete for fewer seats than advertised, while carrying higher risk.
This is not equal competition.
4. Early Elimination in Multi-Stage Exams Is Especially Unfair
Many government exams have:
Preliminary test
Mains
Interview
The preliminary stage is meant only to shortlist, not to judge final merit.
Scenario: Shortlisting Stage Exclusion
A reserved candidate scores slightly higher in prelims.
A general candidate misses the cut-off by a small margin.
The reserved candidate takes a general slot at the prelim stage.
The general candidate is eliminated permanently.
This is deeply unfair because:
small differences at early stages are often accidental,
later stages may completely reverse rankings,
general candidates lose their chance too early.
Migration should happen, if at all, only at the final selection stage.
5. Age Relaxation Creates Hidden Advantages
Scenario: Experience Gap
General candidate: age 34, limited attempts, fewer years to prepare.
Reserved candidate: age 39, five extra years of study and experience.
Both score almost the same.
Calling this “pure merit” ignores the fact that time itself is an advantage, one that only some candidates are allowed to use.
6. This System Quietly Discourages General Candidates
Over time, general candidates face:
tougher cut-offs,
fewer effective seats,
no safety net,
fewer attempts due to age limits.
This creates a psychological effect:
higher stress,
lower motivation,
withdrawal from public service exams.
Even if no one intends discrimination, the outcome disproportionately harms one group.
7. Reservation Was Meant to Protect, Not to Overlap Without Limits
Reservation exists to ensure minimum representation, not to allow:
full access to general seats plus
full protection of reserved seats.
When both are allowed without balance, reservation becomes one-directional, expanding for some while shrinking opportunities for others.
That was never the purpose of the policy.
8. A Fairer and Balanced Approach
In my view, fairness would require at least one of the following safeguards:
Migration to general seats only at the final stage, not during prelims or shortlisting.
Only those reserved candidates who competed without any relaxation should be allowed to take general seats.
Clear rules ensuring that general category competition remains genuinely equal.
Without such safeguards, equality becomes formal on paper but unequal in reality.
Conclusion
This judgment aims to promote fairness, but in practice it creates an uneven playing field.
True equality does not mean ignoring differences in rules and advantages.It means recognising them and ensuring that no group carries a heavier burden simply because it has no fallback option.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
Comments