High marks, open seat: SC opens door for high scoring reserved candidates

In a significant judgment on January 16, 2026 , the Supreme Court overturned a Kerala High Court decision in the Airport Authority of India case and clarified that candidates from reserved categories who score higher than the general category cutoff can be adjusted against unreserved seats. The ruling means that if a candidate from SC , ST , OBC or EWS scores more than the general cutoff marks, they will be considered for the open category, while the reserved quota remains intact.

The dispute began because the Kerala High Court had held that reserved category candidates could only be selected within their own quota, even if their marks were higher than the general cutoff. But the Supreme Court disagreed, saying that high-scoring reserved candidates should be rewarded for their merit and placed in the unreserved category. The court called this a “merit-induced shift,” where a candidate moves from a reserved seat to an open seat based on their performance.

Before this judgment, the rule was different. Reserved candidates who scored above the general cutoff were still confined to their reserved quota. Their higher marks did not earn them a place in the open category. This meant that a reserved candidate could outperform general candidates but still not be treated as an open category candidate. The Supreme Court’s decision changes this, allowing merit to be recognized without harming reservation.

The court explained that this adjustment does not reduce the reserved seats available for others. For example, the reservation percentages for central government jobs remain the same: SC 15 per cent, ST 7.5 per cent, OBC 27 per cent, and EWS 10 per cent , adding up to 59.5 per cent reserved seats. The remaining 40.5 per cent is unreserved. The judgment only changes how high-scoring reserved candidates are placed within this system.

Those supporting the reserved candidates argued that reservation is meant to provide opportunity, not limit it. If a reserved candidate scores higher than the general cutoff, they should be rewarded with an open seat. Denying them this would violate equality and fairness. On the other hand, the government and authority argued that shifting reserved candidates to open seats could reduce the number of unreserved seats available to general candidates and weaken the purpose of reservation. They maintained that selection should follow the reservation rules strictly.

The Supreme Court, however, balanced both views. It said the reserved quota remains intact and the reserved seats are still filled as before. But if a reserved candidate scores higher than the general cutoff, they can be adjusted to the unreserved list. This means general category candidates may face tougher competition for open seats because high-scoring reserved candidates can now also compete for them. Yet, the court reasoned that it is fair because these reserved candidates have earned the right through better performance.

The ruling follows recent precedents, including the 2025 Rajat Yadav case, where the court upheld the right of reserved candidates to be considered for open seats if they surpass the general cutoff. The Supreme Court’s verdict is expected to have a wide impact on recruitment processes in government jobs and public sector institutions. It reinforces the idea that merit and reservation can coexist, ensuring high performance is rewarded while reservation continues to protect disadvantaged groups.