Patna High Court

Rama Shankar, (UDI No. Ram13101983LAW00440767),versusThe State of Bihar

Decided: 25 March 2026
Disposal: ALLOWED
Bench: THE CHIEF JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR

Holding

A reserved‑category candidate who qualifies in the unreserved merit list must be appointed to a general vacancy, but his indicated university preference must be given due weight; the earlier order was set aside.

Summary

The appellant, an Extremely Backward Class (EBC) candidate, applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Law) and indicated Patna University as his first preference. He secured Rank 4 in the unreserved merit list and Rank 1 in the EBC list, but was allotted a post at Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University under the unreserved category, contrary to his preference. The appellant contended that the allocation violated the merit‑cum‑preference principle and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition, relying on Clause 9.2 of the advertisement and the 2020 Statutes, which treat a reserved candidate qualifying in the open list as a general candidate. The High Court held that while such a candidate must be appointed to a general vacancy, his university preference must be given effect, and the earlier order ignored this constitutional requirement. Consequently, the Court set aside the Single Judge’s judgment and directed a fresh posting in favour of the appellant’s preferred university.

Issues considered

Whether a reserved‑category candidate who qualifies in the unreserved merit list can be appointed to a general vacancy without giving effect to his stated university preference.
Whether Clause 9.2 of the advertisement and the 2020 Statutes can override the constitutional doctrine of merit‑cum‑preference under Articles 14 and 16.
Whether the Single Judge erred in mechanically applying the statutory provisions without considering the appellant’s higher merit and preference.
Whether the appointment order violates established Supreme Court jurisprudence on reservation and migration of meritorious reserved‑category candidates.

Legislation cited

Bihar State University Act, 1976 — s. 36(7)
Patna University Act, 1976

Subjects

reservation
merit‑cum‑preference
university appointment
EBC category
Articles 14 and 16
migration principle
Bihar State University Service Commission
preference allocation
constitutional law

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.497 of 2025
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17205 of 2022
======================================================
Rama Shankar, (UID No. RAM13101983LAW00440767), Son of
Ramchandra Pandit, Resident of House No. 49, Road No.39, Raghunath Tola,
Anishabad, P.S.-Gardanibagh, District-Patna, Bihar.

... ... Appellant
Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Bihar State Higher Education Council through the Chairman, Patna,
Bihar.
4. The Chairman, Bihar State Higher Education Council, Patna, Bihar.
5. The Bihar State University Service Commission through the Chairman,
Patna, Bihar.
6. The Chairman, Bihar State University Service Commission, Patna, Bihar.
7. The Patna University, Patna through the Vice- Chancellor.
8. Quemre Alam Son of Azazul Haque Resident of Village-Sandali, P.O. and
P.S. - Barauli, District- Gopalganj -Bihar-841405.

... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Vikas Kumar Jha, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13
Mr. Abhinave Alok, AC to AAG-13
For the BSUSC : Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate
Ms. Diksha, Advocate
For the P.U. : Mr. Manish Dhari Singh, Advocate
For the Resp No.8 : Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Pushkar Bhardwaj, Advocate
Mr. Md. Tauseef Waquar, Advocate
======================================================
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
2/26

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
And
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR)

Date : 25-03-2026

Heard the learned Senior Advocate(s)/Advocates

appearing for the respective parties.

2. The present intra-court appeal challenges the

judgment dated 04.04.2025 passed in C.W.J.C. No.17205 of

2022, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ

petitioner/appellant, seeking allocation and preferential posting

at Patna University under the EBC category, was rejected on the

grounds stated therein.

3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of the present

appeal, are summarized as follows:-

(i) In exercise of the powers conferred under Section

36(7) of the Bihar State University Act, 1976 and the Patna

University Act, 1976 (as amended from time to time), the

Hon’ble Chancellor of the Universities of Bihar approved the

Statutes governing the appointment of Assistant Professors in

the Universities of Bihar. A notification to this effect was issued

vide Memo No. BSU (Statute)-25/1472/GS(I) dated 10.08.2020.

In accordance with the provisions contained in the said Statutes

and based on the requisition received from the Education
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
3/26

Department, Government of Bihar, for filling up the vacant

posts of Assistant Professor in various Universities and their

constituent colleges in the subject of “Law,” the Bihar State

University Service Commission, Patna (hereinafter referred to

as “the Commission”), issued Advertisement No. AP-LAW-

40/20-21P dated 21.09.2020.

(ii) Pursuant to the said advertisement, online

applications were invited from eligible candidates in the

prescribed format. A total of 15 posts of Assistant Professor

(Law) were advertised, out of which, 5 posts reserved for

Extremely Backward Class (EBC), 5 posts for Unreserved

category, 2 posts for Scheduled Caste (SC), and 1 post each for

Backward Class (BC), Economically Weaker Section (EWS),

and Scheduled Caste (SC). Eligible candidates, including the

writ petitioner/appellant and respondent no. 8, submitted their

applications. Upon completion of the selection process, the

Commission published the final select list along with the

allocation of universities vide Important Notice No. 1220 dated

30.09.2022. The name of the writ petitioner/appellant appeared

at serial no. 4 under the Unreserved category, and he was

allotted Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur

(T.M.B.U.), in accordance with his merit position.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
4/26

(iii) The writ petitioner, being aggrieved by the action

of the Commission in appointing him as Assistant Professor

(Law) at Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur,

allegedly disregarding his preference for appointment at Patna

University, Patna, filed C.W.J.C. No. 17205 of 2022.

(iv) Upon notice, respondent no. 8 entered his

appearance and filed a counter affidavit opposing the

petitioner’s claim. The State and the Commission also filed their

respective counter affidavit(s), categorically asserting that the

entire selection process was conducted strictly in accordance

with the terms of the advertisement and the Statutes of 2020

governing the selection procedures. It was contended that there

was no illegality or irregularity in the selection and appointment

of the writ petitioner/appellant and/or in his allocation to Tilka

Manjhi Bhagalpur University, Bhagalpur.

(v) The learned Single Judge, after considering the

submissions advanced by the counsel for the respective parties

and examining the relevant provisions of the advertisement as

well as the Statutes of 2020, held that the respondents had acted

in conformity with Clause 9 of the advertisement dated

21.09.2020, Clause 4.1 of Chapter IV, and Clause 5.5 of Chapter

V of the Statutes of 2020. Accordingly, the writ petition was
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
5/26

dismissed. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the writ

petitioner/appellant has preferred the present intra-court appeal.

4. Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned Senior Advocate

appearing on behalf of the appellant, while assailing the

judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge, submitted that

the appellant, an Extremely Backward Category (EBC)

candidate, had applied for the post of Assistant Professor (Law)

pursuant to the captioned advertisement. It is undisputed that the

appellant secured Rank 4 under the Unreserved (UR) category

and Rank 1 under the EBC category. Despite having indicated

Patna University as his 1st preference, the appellant was allotted

Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University under the UR category. This

allotment, it is contended, was made in derogation of both his

higher merit position and stated preference, particularly when

two EBC category vacancies were available in Patna University.

Such allocation, therefore, violates the settled doctrine of merit-

cum-preference governing the process of allocation and

migration. Aggrieved by this arbitrary and inequitable allotment,

the appellant challenged the action of the respondent authorities.

However, the learned Single Judge, it is submitted,

mechanically applied Clause 9 of the advertisement along with

Clauses 4.1 and 5.5 of the Statutes, 2020, without examining
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
6/26

whether such an interpretation results in the impermissible

consequence of prejudicing higher-merit reserved category

candidates. It is further contended that the action of the

Commission runs contrary to the principles governing

migration, as authoritatively laid down by the Constitution

Bench in Union of India v. Ramesh Ram & Ors. [(2010) 7

SCC 234].

5. Mr. Mauli, learned Senior Advocate, further

contended that the writ court erred in treating the statutory roster

provisions as overriding the constitutional doctrine of merit-

cum-preference. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Anr. v. Satya

Prakash & Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 550], wherein it was held that

even in the absence of explicit statutory provisions, the principle

of migration must operate so as to enhance, and not diminish,

the prospects of meritorious candidates. It is further submitted

that neither the captioned advertisement nor the Statutes of 2020

provide any express mechanism governing the migration of

meritorious candidates in accordance with their merit-cum-

preference. In such a situation, it is argued, the binding judicial

precedents governing the field must prevail and be strictly

adhered to.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
7/26

6. Reliance has also been placed upon the decision

rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Anurag

Patel v. U.P. Public Service Commission [(2005) 9 SCC 742],

State of Bihar & Ors. v. M. Neethi Chandra, Etc. [(1996) 6

SCC 36], Rajasthan High Court and Anr. v. Rajat Yadav and

Ors.[(2025) SCC OnLine SC 2931] and Tripurari Sharan &

Anr. v. Ranjit Kumar Yadav & Ors. [(2018), 2 SCC 656].

7. Referring to the afore-noted decisions, it is

contended that the law is now well-settled that the principle of

migration is not merely statutory but constitutional in character,

being firmly rooted in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of

India. It is thus submitted that the migration of meritorious

reserved category candidates to the general category cannot

operate to their detriment, particularly by depriving them of

their preferred posts or institutions, as such an outcome would

be manifestly arbitrary and violative of the equality mandate.

8. Mr. Pawan Kumar, learned Advocate for the

Commission, submitted that the Commission, being a recruiting

agency, is duty bound by the provision of the Statute for

appointment as Assistant Professor in the Universities of Bihar,

2020, as well as the stipulation laid down in the captioned

advertisement. Referring to Clause 4.1 and 5.5 of the Statutes, it
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
8/26

is submitted that if a candidate under reserved category qualifies

in the general merit list, he/she will be selected under general

category and accordingly the Commission will prepare a

composite merit list of the subjects on the vacancies and

reservation roster. Out of this composite merit list, a University-

wise panel, with due consideration of preference of Universities

given by the candidates, will be prepared for onward

transmission to the department of the concerned University. It is

further contended that Clause 9.2 of the advertisement

specifically prescribes that if a candidate of reserved category

becomes eligible for merit list of unreserved category, his/her

appointment will be made in the general category and such a

candidate will be allotted a post against a vacancy of general

category, with due consideration of his order of merit and

preference of the Universities.

9. Similarly, Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, learned Senior

Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no.8, dispelling the

contention of learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, has

submitted that the learned Single Judge has considered the

prescription of the Statutes and the terms of the advertisement

and held that the petitioner was selected in the unreserved

category because of his performance in selection process and
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
9/26

allotted Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, which was the

second preference of the petitioner, wherein the post of Assistant

Professor was meant for the unreserved category, because the

three posts advertised for Patna University were reserved for

candidates of EBC and SC category. Strong reliance has been

placed on the terms of the Statutes as well as the advertisement.

It is vehemently contended that the name of the writ

petitioner/appellant was recommended for appointment against

the post of Assistant Professor (Law) in accordance with Clause

9.2 of the advertisement, which categorically prescribes that the

candidate of reserved category becomes eligible for being

considered in merit list of unreserved category and his

appointment will be made in the general category and, as such,

the petitioner was allotted a post against the vacancy of general

category. Hence, the action of the Commission does not suffer

from any infirmity whatsoever in the eyes of law. It is further

contended that now the writ-petitioner/appellant has already

submitted his joining and has been discharging his duty in

TMBU, Bhagalpur, against the seat reserved for general

category candidate; he is clearly estopped in law from raising

any grievance.

10. Mr. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, further
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
10/26

contended that respondent no. 8 was previously working on the

post of Section Officer (Legal) at Aligarh Muslim University,

Aligarh. However, upon his selection and appointment pursuant

to the notification dated 25.03.2023 issued by the Patna

University for the post of Assistant Professor (Law), he duly

tendered his resignation and thereafter joined the said post

against the vacancy reserved for candidates belonging to the

EBC category, for which he had applied. It is further submitted

that any alteration or deviation from the posting in accordance

with the preference exercised by respondent no. 8 would cause

serious prejudice and would be detrimental to the legal rights

accrued to him under the relevant Statutes. Moreover, the writ

petitioner/appellant has at no point of time challenged the

validity of the Statutes 2020, or the terms of the advertisement

issued thereunder, pursuant to which he has been posted at

T.M.B.U., Bhagalpur.

11. Mr. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate, while

concluding his submissions, further contended that the

Constitution Bench judgment rendered in Ramesh Ram (supra)

is distinguishable and not applicable to the facts of the present

case. He submitted that the migration rule enunciated therein

was premised upon a specific provision contained in Rule 16(2)
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
11/26

of the Civil Services Examination (CSE) Rules, which expressly

permits a Meritorious Reserved Category (MRC) candidate to

exercise an option between allocation under the general

category and the respective reserved category. It is argued that

no such provision exists in the present framework. In the instant

case, the posts across different universities are identical in

nature, and therefore, no prejudice would be caused to any

candidate if allotment is made strictly in accordance with the

merit-based roster, irrespective of the university assigned.

12. Before coming to the legality of the order/

judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, it would be apt

and proper to take note of the relevant decisions placed by the

learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant,

and its applicability in the present case.

13. Coming to the Constitution Bench decision in

Ramesh Ram (supra), wherein a challenge was made to the

constitutional validity of sub-rules (2) to (5) of Rule 16 of the

Civil Services Examination (CSE) Rules for the years 2005–

2007, framed by the Union Public Service Commission. A three-

Judge Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, by order dated

14.05.2009, referred the matter to a Constitution Bench,

observing that it raised substantial questions of constitutional
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
12/26

importance. The principal issue for consideration was whether

candidates belonging to reserved categories, who are

recommended against general/unreserved vacancies on the basis

of their own merit without availing any relaxation or concession

are entitled to opt for a higher preference of service by being

considered under the reserved category, thereby permitting

migration from the general category to the reserved category at

the stage of service allocation.

14. The Constitution Bench, inter alia, formulated the

following questions for determination:

“(i) whether reserved category
candidates who are selected on merit and
placed in the list of general category candidates
can nevertheless be treated as reserved
category candidates at the stage of service
allocation;

(ii) whether Rule 16(2), 16(3), 16(4),
and 16(5) of the CSE Rules are inconsistent
with Rule 16(1) and violative of Articles 14, 16,
and 335 of the Constitution of India;

and (iii) whether the principles
governing reservation in admissions to
educational institutions can be applied in
assessing the constitutionality of reservation
policies in the context of civil services.”
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
13/26

15. The Constitution Bench, while answering issue (i),

was pleased to hold that Meritorious Reserved Category (MRC)

candidates who avail the benefit of Rule 16(2) and are

ultimately adjusted against reserved category vacancies are to be

counted within the reserved pool for the purpose of computing

the overall reservation quota. Consequently, the vacancies

vacated by such MRC candidates in the general/unreserved

category are to be filled by candidates belonging to the general

category. The Court thus found no legal impediment to the

migration of MRC candidates from the general category to the

reserved category at the stage of service allocation.

16. While addressing issue (ii), the Constitution Bench

upheld the validity of the impugned provisions, observing that

the incorporation of such a rule is intended to prevent

arbitrariness and to safeguard the interests of meritorious

candidates belonging to reserved categories. It was further held

that declaring such provisions redundant or unconstitutional

would defeat the very objective of the equality clause enshrined

under Articles 14, 16, and 335 of the Constitution of India,

inasmuch as MRC candidates though qualifying on general

standards would be placed at a disadvantage. This is because

candidates lower in merit within the same reserved category
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
14/26

could, by availing reservation benefits, secure more preferred

service allocations.

17. In answering issue (iii), the Constitution Bench

categorically observed that, having regard to the distinctive

features of the Civil Services Examination conducted by the

Union Public Service Commission, candidates belonging to

reserved categories such as OBC, SC, and ST, who are selected

on merit and placed in the general/unreserved list, are entitled to

opt for migration to their respective reserved categories at the

stage of service allocation. The Constitution Bench further

distinguished the decision in Anurag Patel (supra) on the basis

of the factual matrix involved therein, holding that the same was

not applicable to the issues arising in the present case.

18. Coming to the case of Satya Prakash (supra), the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that no reserved category candidate

recommended by the Commission without resorting to the

relaxed standard opts a preference from the reserved category, in

the process the choice of preference of the reserved category

recommended by resorting to the relaxed standard will be

pushed further down but shall be allotted to any of the

remaining services/posts in which there are vacancies after

allocation of all the candidates who can be allocated to a
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
15/26

service/post in accordance with their preference.

19. Suffice it to observe, the case of Satya Prakash

(supra) was also in relation to the appointment against the

vacant post of different categories under the Civil Services

Examination rules conducted by the Union Public Service

Commission.

20. Further, in the case of Anurag Patel (supra), the

Hon'ble Supreme Court held that where a reserved category

candidate secure higher general merit, the allocation must still

be governed by merit-cum-preference, ensuring no prejudice to

a more meritorious reserved category candidate.

21. Similarly in the case of Rajat Yadav (supra), the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-7 of its judgment held that

migration of meritorious reserved category candidates to general

category candidates cannot disadvantage by depriving them of

preferred post/services. If migration causes loss of preferred

reserved post/service, the candidate must be allowed to claim it

within the reserved quota to prevent such unfairness and to

ensure that reservation functions as an instrument of inclusion

rather than an instrument of disadvantage.

22. In the case of Tripurari Sharan (supra),the

Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the reservation provision must
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
16/26

not operate to the disadvantage of the meritorious reserved

category candidates.

23. Similarly in M. Neethi Chandra (supra), the

Hon’ble Supreme Court, in essence, held that the principle of

protective discrimination cannot be applied in a manner that

operates to the detriment of meritorious candidates belonging to

reserved categories. The Court accordingly struck down the

method of allocation whereby a meritorious reserved category

candidate was denied a more advantageous post solely on

account of being adjusted against the general/unreserved

category.

24. Now, coming to the relevant provisions of the

Statutes, 2020 and the advertisement, this Court deems it

appropriate to reproduce paragraph 12 of the judgment dated

04.04.2025 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 17205 of 2022, wherein the

same have been extracted for ready reference:

“12. Clause 9 of the Advertisement;
Chapter-4 and Clauses 5.0 and 5.5 of Chapter-5
of the Statutes of 2020 as relied on by the
contesting parties are extracted hereinbelow for
ready reference:

“9. Allotment of University

9.1 The Commission will prepare a
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
17/26

subject wise common merit list as per vacancy
and reservation roster. Out of this common
merit list, university wise merit list will be
drawn with due consideration of the order of
preference given by the Candidates.

9.2 If a candidate of reserved category
becomes eligible for the merit list of unreserved
category, his appointment will be made in the
general category and such a candidate will be
allotted a post against a vacancy of general
category, with due consideration of the order of
his preference for universities.

9.3 The candidate should mark order
of preference for all the related universities.
………………………………………………….

Chapter-4

4.0. Reservation

4.1 The current Reservation Policy of
the State Govt. as applicable on the date of
advertisement will strictly be followed
categorywise and subject-wise as per the roster
prepared by the university administration/state
govt. If a candidate under reserved category
qualifies in the general merit list he/she will be
selected under general category.

Chapter-5

5.0 Selection Process
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
18/26

5.5 The Commission will prepare a
composite merit list of the subjects on the basis
of vacancies and reservation roster. Out of this
composite merit list a University wise panel,
with due consideration of preference of
universities given by the candidates, will be
prepared for onward transmission to the
department/university.”

25. Before adverting to the relevant prescriptions

referred to hereinabove, it would be pertinent to take note of the

admitted position that the appellant had applied for the post of

Assistant Professor (Law) in different universities pursuant to

the captioned advertisement under the EBC category, indicating

his first preference as Patna University, Patna, followed by

T.M.B.U., Bhagalpur and Baba Saheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar

University, Muzaffarpur. Out of three vacancies available in the

subject of Law at Patna University, two vacancies were reserved

for the EBC category and one for the Scheduled Caste category.

Upon completion of the selection process, the appellant secured

Rank 4 in the Unreserved (UR) category and Rank 1 in the EBC

category. Since the appellant qualified in the general merit list,

his appointment was made under the Unreserved category, and

he was allotted T.M.B.U., Bhagalpur based on his merit position

in the UR category.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
19/26

26. In the aforesaid undisputed facts, this Court now

proceeds to examine the relevant prescriptions.

27. In the opinion of this Court, after going through

the above referred prescriptions of the Statues, there is no

dispute that once a candidate belonging to a reserved category

qualifies on the basis of merit in the unreserved category, such

candidate is to be treated as a general category candidate. The

Commission is required to prepare a composite merit list of the

subject, taking into account the vacancies, the reservation roster,

and the preferences of universities indicated by the candidates.

28. Clause 9 of the advertisement deals with the

allotment of universities, and Clause 9.2 thereof clearly

stipulates that a reserved category candidate who secures a

position in the unreserved merit list shall be appointed against a

general category vacancy. However, the said clause further

mandates that due consideration must be given to the order of

preference of universities indicated by such candidate.

29. Admittedly, the first preference of the appellant

was Patna University under the EBC category, to which he

belongs. There was no preference indicated by the appellant as a

general category candidate for any university.

30. It is true that Clause 9.2 provides that once a
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
20/26

reserved category candidate qualifies under the unreserved

category, his appointment shall be made against a general

category vacancy. However, we cannot lose sight that the said

prescription also categorically emphasizes that due

consideration must be given to the candidate’s order of

preference for universities; failure to accord preference does not

appear to be in tune with the prescription of Statues, 2020 and

the captioned advertisement. We must keep in mind

interpretation of any Statute must be in consonance with Article

14 of the Constitution and if it is found otherwise, it would be

termed as ‘unsustainable in law’.

31. Further, failure to accord due weightage to the

preference of universities, despite the candidate having secured

a higher position in merit than others who are placed below him,

would certainly operate to the disadvantage of a more

meritorious candidate.

32. It would be apposite to refer to the decision of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ritesh R. Sah v. Dr. Y.L. Yamul

[(1996) 3 SCC 253], wherein the Court considered the issue as

to whether a candidate belonging to a reserved category, who

qualifies on the basis of merit in open competition, ought to be

counted against the reserved quota or treated as a candidate
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
21/26

under the unreserved category. The Hon’ble Court categorically

held that such a candidate is required to be treated as a general

category candidate. The relevant observations are reproduced

hereinbelow:-

"17. ... In view of the legal position
enunciated by this Court in the aforesaid cases
the conclusion is irresistible that a student who
is entitled to be admitted on the basis of merit
though belonging to a reserved category cannot
be considered to be admitted against seats
reserved for reserved category. But at the same
time the provisions should be so made that it
will not work out to the disadvantage of such
candidate and he may not be placed at a more
disadvantageous position than the other less
meritorious reserved category candidates. The
aforesaid objective can be achieved if after
finding out the candidates from amongst the
reserved category who would otherwise come in
the open merit list and then asking their option
for admission into the different colleges which
have been kept reserved for reserved category
and thereafter the cases of less meritorious
reserved category candidates should be
considered and they be allotted seats in
whichever colleges the seats should be
available. In other words, while a reserved
category candidate entitled to admission on the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
22/26

basis of his merit will have the option of taking
admission in the colleges where a specified
number of seats have been kept reserved for
reserved category but while computing the
percentage of reservation he will be deemed to
have been admitted as an open category
candidate and not as a reserved category
candidate."

(emphasis supplied)

33. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated and

reaffirmed in a catena of decisions. Recently, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Tripurari Sharan (supra) underscored that

the law is well settled that reservation provisions must not

operate to the disadvantage of meritorious reserved category

candidates. A meritorious reserved category candidate should

not be placed in a worse position than less meritorious

candidates of the same category.

34. The afore-mentioned objectives can be achieved

by first identifying those reserved category candidates who

qualify on merit in the open category and thereafter allowing

them the option of allocation based on their preferences. The

less meritorious reserved category candidates may then be

considered against the reserved vacancies. In other words, a

reserved category candidate who is selected on merit is entitled
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
23/26

to be treated as a general category candidate for the purposes of

selection; however, such treatment must not deprive him of the

benefit of his higher merit and his indicated preferences.

35. It would be apposite to refer to the decision

rendered in Rajat Yadav (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme

Court, while concluding the matter, deemed it appropriate to

enter a caveat in paragraph 74, observing as follows:-

“74. A situation could arise, if the
aforesaid principles were applied, of a reserved
category candidate based on his/her
performance outshining General/Open
candidates and figuring in the General merit
list, but finding the options to be limited. He/she
may, as a consequence of being counted as a
General candidate, lose out on a preferred
service or a preferred post because the same is
reserved for a reserved category candidate.
Should such an eventuality occur, the same is
bound to breed dissatisfaction, disappointment
and displeasure which are not in the interests of
public service. After all, fairness matters even
in public employment. Where adjustment
against the unreserved category would result in
a more meritorious reserved category candidate
being displaced in favour of a less meritorious
candidate within the same category for a
preferred service or a preferred post within the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
24/26

reserved quota, the former must be permitted to
be considered against the service/post in the
reserved quota. This would ensure merit being
preserved both across categories and within
them, and that reservation functions as a means
of inclusion rather than an instrument of
disadvantage.”

36. After meticulously considering the rulings of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered opinion

that under no circumstances can the merit of a candidate be

rendered a disadvantage to his position by denying him the

benefit of his preferred admission or posting. Such denial would

be wholly impermissible, particularly when less meritorious

candidates belonging to the reserved category have been

extended such benefits. A candidate who, on account of his

higher merit, is placed in the unreserved category cannot be

treated in a manner that places him at a disadvantage vis-à-vis

candidates with lower merit who continue to avail benefits

under the reserved category. Merit cannot operate as a penal

factor. Even in a situation where the posts across different

universities are identical, the preference indicated by a

candidate and his merit ranking, cannot be disregarded by

treating the merit of a person to its disadvantage.

37. This Court does not find any embargo, either
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
25/26

under the Statutes or the advertisement, in extending due

consideration to the order of preference indicated by a

candidate. In the considered opinion of this Court, even if a

candidate belonging to a reserved category qualifies in the merit

list of the unreserved category, his appointment shall

undoubtedly be made against a general category vacancy;

however, his preference, as indicated at the time of application,

must be duly considered. Such an interpretation alone would

subserve the constitutional mandate enshrined under Articles 14

and 16 of the Constitution of India. Any deviation from the

aforesaid principles would amount to an infraction of the settled

propositions of law as noted hereinabove.

38. In view of the aforesaid discussion(s), this Court

finds merit in the present Letters Patent Appeal. Accordingly,

the same stands allowed.

39. The judgment/order dated 04.04.2025 passed in

C.W.J.C. No. 17205 of 2022 by the learned Single Judge is

hereby set aside. Consequently, C.W.J.C. No. 17205 of 2025

also stands allowed.

40. The Bihar State University Service Commission is

directed, in compliance with the present order, to issue a fresh

order of posting in favour of the writ petitioner/appellant strictly
Patna High Court L.P.A No.497 of 2025 dt.25-03-2026
26/26

in accordance with his indicated preference.

41. There shall be no order as to cost(s).

(Harish Kumar, J)

(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ): I agree.

(Sangam Kumar Sahoo, CJ)

rohit/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 17.03.2026
Uploading Date 25-03-2026
Transmission Date

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.