State Cannot Fill Reserved Posts With Open Category Candidates: Bombay HC

The Bombay High Court has reprimanded the State of Maharashtra for arbitrary recruitment practices, ruling that adjusting open-merit candidates against reserved vacancies is a fatal violation of constitutional mandates and the rights of reserved category aspirants.

A division bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Gautam A. Ankhad modified an order passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, observing that the State's failure to adhere to the merit list in reserved categories amounted to discriminatory treatment under the Constitution of India.

Key Takeaways

Preservation of Reserved Quota

Reserved posts must be filled strictly by members of the reserved category, and open-merit selections cannot diminish this protected quota.

Non-Discriminatory Recruitment

State authorities are bound to act fairly and cannot arbitrarily deviate from MPSC recommendation lists to exclude eligible candidates.

Supernumerary Post Creation

Lack of current vacancies is no excuse for denying relief to a candidate wrongfully excluded over a decade ago; the State must create posts if necessary.

Constitutional Primacy

Administrative stipulations in advertisements regarding the change in post numbers cannot override settled constitutional law and judicial precedents.

Court's Rationale on Article 16(4)

The Bombay High Court emphasized that while inclusion in a recommendation list does not confer an absolute right to appointment, Article 14 of the Constitution of India guarantees fair and non-discriminatory treatment. The Court noted that the Petitioner, who ranked second in the SC-Female category, was excluded because the State adjusted two candidates recommended in the "Open-Female" category against the three available SC-Female vacancies. The Bench observed that "The law on the adjustment of candidates as per the mandate of Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India is well settled. In R.K. Sabharwal Vs. State of Punjab ( "(1995) 2 SCC 745": 1995 CaseBase(SC) 181), a Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that reserve posts are to be filled amongst members of the reserve categories and the candidates belonging to open categories, who are selected on their own merit, cannot be considered for the posts of the reserved category. A vacancy earmarked for a reserved category cannot be interchanged and/or set-off with a candidate from open category merely because a reserved-category candidate is appointed in that vacancy."

Ratio

Reserved category candidates selected on their own merit in open competition must be treated as open competition candidates and cannot be counted against the quota reserved for Scheduled Castes or Tribes. Consequently, the State cannot fill a reserved roster point with an open-merit candidate to the exclusion of other qualified reserved-category aspirants.

Background

The dispute originated from a 2013 advertisement issued by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission for 92 posts of Lecturer (Group A). The Petitioner, an SC-Female candidate, successfully cleared the examination and was ranked 74th overall (SC-Female-2). Despite her recommendation, she was not appointed in the subsequent recruitment rounds between 2015 and 2017. The State contended that following the regularization of contractual lecturers and a revised staffing pattern under a 2025 Government Resolution, the sanctioned strength had been reduced, leaving no vacancies.

However, the Petitioner argued that two candidates with "Open-Female" recommendations were illegally adjusted against the SC-Female quota. Relying on R.K. Sabharwal Vs. State of Punjab ( "(1995) 2 SCC 745": 1995 CaseBase(SC) 181) and Ritesh Sah Vs. Dr. Y.L. Yamul, the Bombay High Court found that the State's actions were ex-facie illegal. It held that the Petitioner could not be penalized for the State's decade-long error or subsequent policy changes in staffing patterns.

Case Details:
Case No.: WRIT PETITION NO. 15028 OF 2023
Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:44317-DB
Case Title: Shilpa Maruti Sonawane v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Siddh Vidya a/w Ms. Mansi Sahani, Ms. Akshata Morye, Ms. Rohini Kaushal, Ms. Shivani Gosavi, Ms. Shweta Kate and Mr. Bhuvan Vikram i/b Siddh Vidya and Associates.
For the Respondent(s): Mr N.C. Walimbe, Addl G.P. a/w Mr. S.P. Kamble, AGP for the Respondents-State.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(BOM) 7142