Chaya & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.

Practical Implications for Advocates

This judgment fundamentally reshapes how advocates approach reservation and migration disputes in public employment. It establishes that the decisive factor is not whether a candidate availed relaxation at the eligibility stage, but whether the Recruitment Rules expressly prohibit migration. In practice, this means that before drafting any writ petition or defence, advocates must first scrutinise the recruitment notification and governing rules—this becomes the primary document, not case law. For petitioners, the strategy is to demonstrate that relaxation was confined to the qualifying stage and that merit in the main examination was assessed uniformly, thereby invoking the right to open category consideration. For the State or recruiting bodies, the only sustainable defence post this judgment is to point to a clear statutory or rule-based prohibition; administrative instructions or circulars will not suffice. Additionally, this case equips advocates with a strong tool to distinguish Pradeep Kumar by showing that their client fulfilled essential eligibility and merely used a legally sanctioned relaxation. Overall, the judgment shifts litigation focus from abstract reservation principles to a rule-centric and stage-specific analysis, making recruitment rules the centerpiece of every argument.