SC affirms State’s decision to restore Rule 4 of Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules for drawing up result of prelims by segregating deserving meritorious reservation category candidates from meritorious unreserved category candidates
Justices C.T. Ravikumar & Sanjay Kumar [01-05-2024]

Read Order: Deependra Yadav and others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and others [SC- Civil Appeal No. 5604 of 2024]

Tulip Kanth

New Delhi, May 2, 2024: In a case pertaining to the 2019 Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination, the Supreme Court has confirmed the decision of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court upholding the judgment of the Single-Judge Bench which passed directions for preparation of a fresh list of selected candidates on the basis of the results of two main examinations by merging and normalizing the two lists.

This litigation, impacting multitudes of job aspirants in the State of Madhya Pradesh emanated from the amendment of an existing service rule on 17.02.2020 which was recalled thereafter on 20.12.2021, restoring the rule to its original position. In the interregnum, that amended rule was applied to an ongoing recruitment process. This prompted several challenges before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur resulting in a spate of orders and directions leading up to these cases before the Top Court.

The Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC) issued an advertisement on 14.11.2019 proposing to select candidates for 571 posts in the State services in accordance with the Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015.  The total number of candidates who registered for the preliminary examination stood at 3,64,877 but only 3,18,130 of them actually appeared for the examination. At that stage, on 17.02.2020, Rule 4 of the Rules of 2015 was amended by the State of Madhya Pradesh. 

As per the pre amended Rule 4, the result of the preliminary examination was to be declared by clubbing meritorious reservation category candidates, who had not availed any reservation benefit, with the meritorious unreserved category candidates and not with their respective reservation category candidates. Post amended Rule 4 provided that adjustment and segregation of meritorious reservation category candidates with meritorious unreserved category candidates would be only at the time of final selection and not at the time of the preliminary/main examination. The amended Rule 4 was applied to the ongoing recruitment process relating to the notified 571 vacant posts. Thus, there was no segregation of meritorious reservation category candidates with those from the unreserved category and they were shown in their respective reservation categories only. 

The number of candidates who cleared the preliminary examination on this basis were 10,767. On 20.12.2021, the Rules of 2015 were again amended by the State of Madhya Pradesh. Thereby, the position existing prior to the amendment effected on 17.02.2020 was restored.The result of such omission and Rule 4(1)(a)(ii), as it presently stands, is that meritorious reservation category candidates, who did not avail any benefit of relaxation, are to be clubbed with meritorious unreserved category candidates at the time of declaring the result of the preliminary examination itself. In effect, status quo ante was restored.

The MPPSC issued another Advertisement. The MPPSC declared the revised result of the preliminary examination, in tune with the unamended Rule 4 of the Rules of 2015. In consequence, 13,080 candidates were declared qualified for the main examination, instead of the 10,767 candidates declared eligible earlier as per amended Rule 4(3)(d) (III). After a series of litigation, a Single-Judge Bench of Madhya Pradesh directed the MPPSC to merge and normalize the result of the first main examination and the result of the special main examination, held on the strength of the revised preliminary examination result. 398 candidates out of the 1918 candidates, who were declared eligible for the interview earlier, stood ousted and were no longer eligible.

Few candidates had approached the High Court and by an Order, Single-Bench directed that, on the basis of the results of two main examinations, a fresh list of selected candidates should be prepared in terms of the Rules of 2015 for the interview, by merging and normalizing the two lists, as per the process adopted by the MPPSC on previous occasions.  On 25.01.2023, the Division Bench confirmed this order. This order was challenged before the Top Court in the present case. 

Noting that there was no lacuna in the process adopted or the formula applied, whereby injustice was done to any candidate or any arbitrariness crept in, the Division Bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar & Justice Sanjay Kumar held that the process of normalization and the consequential merger of the marks secured by the candidates who appeared in the two main examinations couldn’t be found fault with.

The Bench also added that Rule 4(3)(d)(III) of the Rules of 2015 patently harmed the interests of the reservation category candidates, as even meritorious candidates from such categories, who had not availed any reservation benefit/relaxation, were to be treated as belonging to those reservation categories and they were not to be segregated with meritorious unreserved category candidates at the preliminary examination result stage. 

Referring to the judgment in Kishor Choudhary and Ors v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the Bench said, “It appears that the State of Madhya Pradesh itself realized the harm that it was doing to the reservation category candidates and chose to restore Rule 4, as it stood earlier, which enabled drawing up the result of the preliminary examination by segregating deserving meritorious reservation category candidates with meritorious unreserved category candidates at the preliminary examination stage itself. As this was the process that was undertaken after the judgment in Kishor Choudhary (supra), whereby a greater number of reservation category candidates cleared the preliminary examination and were held eligible to appear in the main examination, there can be no dispute with the legality and validity of such process”, the Bench said.

Thus, dismissing the appeal, the Bench held that the impugned judgment dated 25.01.2023 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh did not need interference on any ground, be it on facts or in law.