Supreme Court Clarifies Rules for Preference-Based Selection in Public Service Exams: Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Manish Bakawale (2021)

Date of the Judgment: 17 December 2021

Citation: 2021 INSC 743

Judges: Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J., A.S. Bopanna, J.

Can a candidate, who declares they meet all eligibility criteria for a preferred post in a public service exam, be considered for a lower preferred post if they are later found ineligible for the higher one? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question, clarifying the rules regarding preference-based selections. This case revolves around a candidate who, after being selected for a higher preferred post but found ineligible due to physical measurement, sought consideration for a lower preferred post. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud and A.S. Bopanna, delivered the judgment, with Justice A.S. Bopanna authoring the opinion.

Case Background

The Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC) issued an advertisement on 17 March 2016, for the State Service Examination 2016, inviting applications for various posts. The advertisement detailed eligibility criteria, including specific physical measurements for certain posts like Deputy Superintendent of Police. The last date for application was 14 April 2016, and the preliminary exam was scheduled for 29 May 2016.

Manish Bakawale, the first respondent, applied and indicated his order of preference for various posts. His second preference was for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, which required a minimum height of 168 cm. He secured 892 marks out of 1575, sufficient to be included in the merit list for Deputy Superintendent of Police. However, during the medical examination, his height was found to be only 162 cm, making him ineligible for the post.

Bakawale then approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, arguing that since another candidate with the same marks was appointed as Chief Municipal Officer (CMO), and he had also listed CMO as a lower preference, he should be considered for that post. The High Court ruled in his favor, directing the MPPSC to consider his case for appointment to the CMO post.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh, in its single-judge bench, allowed the writ petition filed by Manish Bakawale. The court directed the MPPSC to consider Bakawale for appointment to the post of CMO, or any other post based on his preference, noting that he was selected in the main list but could not be appointed to the higher post due to not meeting the physical benchmark. The Division Bench of the High Court upheld the single judge’s order, leading to the MPPSC’s appeal to the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of Rule 4(3)(c)(1) and (2) of the Madhya Pradesh State Civil Services Rules, 2015. These rules govern the process of recommending candidates for specific services or posts based on their marks and preferences.

Rule 4(3)(c)(1) states:
“Category wise recommendation of the candidates, for any specific service/post will be made according to the marks obtained by them and preference sheet (if any) submitted by them.”

Rule 4(3)(c)(2) further clarifies:
“If a candidate is selected in the main list on the basis of the higher priority of post given by him in the preference sheet, he/she will not be considered for the remaining post(s) of preference sheet.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission):

• The MPPSC argued that Rule 4(3)(c)(2) of the Madhya Pradesh State Civil Services Rules, 2015, clearly states that if a candidate is selected in the main list for a higher preferred post, they will not be considered for any other posts.
• The appellant highlighted that the advertisement explicitly mentioned the physical measurement requirements for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
• The MPPSC emphasized that the respondent, Manish Bakawale, had declared in his application that he fulfilled all eligibility criteria, including the physical measurement for the posts he had preferred.
• The appellant contended that by opting for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Bakawale had represented that he met the physical requirements for the post.
• The MPPSC stated that the selection process involved preparing a merit list based on marks and preferences, and once a candidate is included in the main list for a preferred post, their consideration for other posts is exhausted.
• The appellant argued that allowing Bakawale to be considered for a lower preferred post would displace a candidate who had truthfully declared their eligibility and was rightfully selected.

Respondent’s Arguments (Manish Bakawale):

• The respondent argued that Rule 4(3)(c)(2) should not be interpreted narrowly.
• Bakawale contended that the physical criteria should not be a bar merely because the benchmark was not met during the medical examination.
• He argued that there could be variations in physical measurements between the time of application and the medical examination.
• The respondent stated that since he was not appointed to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, he should be considered for the next preferred post.
• Bakawale relied on precedents to argue that rules should be interpreted beneficially and not literally.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following issue:

1. Whether the High Court was correct in directing the appellant to consider the case of the respondent No.1 for appointment on the post of the Chief Municipal Officer (CMO) Grade-Kh, Assistant Director or any other post mentioned by the respondent No.1 in his preference letter, despite the respondent No.1 being selected in the main list for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, for which he was later found ineligible due to not meeting the prescribed physical measurement.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

On Interpretation of Statutes:

• R.L. Arora vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., AIR 1964 SC 1230 (Supreme Court of India): The Court noted that literal interpretation is not always the only interpretation of a provision in a statute.
• Surjit vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited, 2009 16 SCC 722 (Supreme Court of India): The Court observed that a statute must be interpreted in the context it was made and the purpose it seeks to achieve.

On Principles of Justice:

• Union of India and Ors. vs. Major General Madan Lal Yadav (Retd.), (1996) 4 SCC 127 (Supreme Court of India): The Court noted that a person should not take advantage of their own wrong to gain a favorable interpretation of the law.

On Recruitment Process:

• D.G. Dalal vs. State of Gujarat, (2002) 2 GLR 1011 (Gujarat High Court): This case was related to a recruitment process where a waiting list was maintained against vacant posts. The Supreme Court distinguished this case, stating it had no application to the present matter.

Judgment

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court considered the case of R.L. Arora vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. [AIR 1964 SC 1230], but distinguished it, noting that while literal interpretation is not always the only interpretation, the present case had a clear rule that needed to be followed.
• The Supreme Court considered the case of Surjit vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited [2009 16 SCC 722], but distinguished it, noting that while the context of a statute is important, the present case had a specific rule that needed to be followed.
• The Supreme Court considered the case of Union of India and Ors. vs. Major General Madan Lal Yadav (Retd.) [(1996) 4 SCC 127], and noted that a person should not take advantage of their own wrong. This principle was applied against the respondent, who had made a false declaration.
• The Supreme Court distinguished the case of D.G. Dalal vs. State of Gujarat [(2002) 2 GLR 1011], stating that it had no application to the facts of the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the following factors:

• Adherence to Rules: The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the specific rules and procedures laid down for the selection process.
• Candidate Declaration: The Court placed significant weight on the declaration made by the candidate in the application form, stating that he fulfilled all eligibility criteria.
• Fairness and Equity: The Court aimed to ensure that the selection process was fair and equitable to all candidates, preventing any candidate from gaining an unfair advantage.
• Administrative Efficiency: The Court sought to uphold the administrative process and avoid disrupting the selection process once it was completed.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

The Court reasoned that the respondent’s declaration of meeting all eligibility criteria was crucial. By opting for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, the respondent represented that he met the physical requirements. The Court also emphasized that the rule clearly states that once a candidate is selected in the main list for a higher preferred post, they are not to be considered for other posts. The Court rejected the argument that the rule should be interpreted beneficially, stating that the rule provided for a definite process.

The Court noted that if the respondent were to be considered for a lower preferred post, it would displace a candidate who had made a truthful declaration and was rightfully selected. This would not only interfere with the administrative process but also cause hardship to other candidates. The Court stated that the respondent had to blame himself for exercising a preference for a post for which he was not eligible.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in its conclusion and set aside the High Court’s order. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the rules and the declaration made by the candidate.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“If that be the position, the positive declaration made by the respondent No.1 is that he satisfies the minimum eligibility of 168 cms. height required for the post he has preferred which is the higher post than the next preference.”

“The candidate concerned had applied without demur and also furnished a declaration with regard to correctness of details provided. He cannot thereafter turn around to seek alteration of the position to the detriment of others.”

“In that view, the High Court was not justified in its conclusion. We accordingly, set aside the order dated 03.01.2019 passed in W.P. No.20855/2017 and the order dated 08.11.2019 passed in W.A. No.474/2019.”

Key Takeaways

• Candidates must ensure they meet all eligibility criteria before indicating their preferences in public service examinations.
• A declaration made by a candidate in the application form regarding their eligibility is binding.
• Once a candidate is selected in the main list for a higher preferred post, they will not be considered for any other posts, even if they are later found ineligible for the higher post.
• Courts will uphold the rules and procedures laid down for the selection process to ensure fairness and equity.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the orders of the High Court and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion of any specific amendments in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a candidate who declares they meet all eligibility criteria for a preferred post in a public service exam, and is selected in the main list for that post, cannot be considered for a lower preferred post if they are later found ineligible for the higher one. This reinforces the importance of truthful declarations by candidates and adherence to the rules of the selection process. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of Rule 4(3)(c)(2) of the Madhya Pradesh State Civil Services Rules, 2015, and reinforces the principle that candidates must be held accountable for the declarations they make in their application forms.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Manish Bakawale & Ors. clarifies that candidates in public service examinations must be truthful in their declarations and adhere to the rules of the selection process. Once a candidate is selected in the main list for a higher preferred post, they cannot be considered for other posts if they are later found ineligible for the higher post. This decision upholds the integrity of the selection process and ensures fairness to all candidates.