Relaxation in NET/SLET/SET Does Not Bar Reserved Candidates From Unreserved Lecturer Posts on Merit: Rajasthan High Court

The petitioners, general-category candidates eligible for Assistant Professor (Law), sought directions on the RPSC advertisement of 02.11.2020 for Assistant Professor posts (paras 1, 4, 9). Note 2 of Condition 14, based on a Department of Personnel circular of 26.07.2017, bars a reserved-category candidate who avails any relaxation other than fees from unreserved vacancies (paras 10, 27). The petitioners said it did not make clear whether lower NET/SLET/SET qualifying marks were such a relaxation, and sought a corrigendum or fresh advertisement (paras 1, 11-12). They pointed to OBC candidates selected against unreserved posts in the last recruitment (para 6). The RPSC replied that NET/SLET/SET marks play no part in the merit list and that the petition was premature (para 24).

Eligibility requires a good academic record and NET/SLET/SET, while selection is by a written examination of 200 marks and an interview of 24 marks; no marks are added for them, so NET/SLET/SET is only a minimum eligibility condition (paras 29-31). Under the 26.07.2017 circular, only a concession availed in the recruitment process bars migration, and the ‘recruitment process’ does not include any stage before the advertisement, examination and merit list (paras 32-34). NET qualifying marks and the 6% slot are fixed under UGC guidelines and cannot determine the merit of reserved-category candidates (para 35). The 5% relaxation in good academic record is not a double benefit, and a relaxation at the initial stage does not change the level playing field (paras 36-37). By analogy with Article 15(4), a special provision once availed does not make a candidate reserved-category for all time; a reserved candidate who scores more than general candidates counts against the general seat (paras 38-39). Following Vikas Sankhla, a relaxation in passing an eligibility test is not a concession in the recruitment process (paras 43-44). Having come before the selection culminated and without a cause of action, the petitioners could not sue on apprehensions (paras 40-42, 45-46).