M.P. State Civil Services Rules, 2015 – r.4(3)(c)(1),(2) – Appellant issued advertisement inviting applications for State Service Examination for various posts in different departments – Respondent no.1 (SC category candidate) gave his order of preference as- Deputy District Collector, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) and Chief Municipal Officer (CMO) – 892 marks obtained by the respondent no.1 were not sufficient for the post of his first preference – Considered for the post of DSP, his second preference – However, was found ineligible as he did not meet the additional eligibility criteria of minimum physical measurement for the said post – Respondent no.1 filed writ petition claiming that a candidate belonging to SC category who had also secured 892 marks was appointed to the post of CMO, thus he is also entitled to be appointed to the post of CMO – Allowed by Single Judge – Affirmed by Division Bench – Held: Advertisement indicated the requirement of the Rule that a candidate who had preferred the higher of the posts advertised would be selected against such post depending on the merit – Clause (2) of sub-rule (3) clarifies that if a candidate is selected in the main list on the basis of the higher priority of the post given by him in the preference sheet, he will not be considered for the remaining post indicated therein – Rule is not under challenge – Apart from indicating that his second preference is the post of DSP, respondent no.1 also signed a declaration – Declaration was explicit that the choice of preference to the post was made by him since according to him he fulfilled the prescribed eligibility criteria, including physical measurement– Respondent no.1 who made declaration about the correctness of his eligibility and was included in the main list for the said post, has to blame himself if found ineligible since his height was admittedly 162 cms which was within his knowledge – He ought not to have exercised the preference – But having acted so at that stage, if respondent no.1’s request for appointment to the next preferred post is accepted, it will displace a candidate who having made a truthful declaration indicated the appropriate preference, and is selected and placed in the main list – Writ petition dismissed – Service Law.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD 1.1 Though several posts were advertised and the applications were sought from the eligible candidates, the preliminary and written examination was common and the marks as obtained in the said examination was taken into consideration to include the candidates based on merit to the post for which the candidate concerned had given his preference. The advertisement had indicated the requirement of the Rule that a candidate who had preferred the higher of the posts which has been advertised would be selected against such post depending on the merit in the examination. To that extent Rule 4(3)(c)(2) of Rules 2015 is clear and specific that the category-wise recommendation of the candidates will be made according to the marks obtained by them and the preference sheet submitted by the candidate. Clause (2) of Sub-Rule (3) further clarifies that if a candidate is selected in the main list on the basis of the higher priority of the post given by him in the preference sheet, the candidate will not be considered for the remaining post indicated in the preference sheet. [Para 14][988-B-E]
1.2 The additional eligibility criteria for the post of DSP which had been clearly depicted in the advertisement calling for applications was within the knowledge of respondent No.1. The minimum height prescribed for the said post was 168 cms. The application submitted by the respondent No.1 apart from indicating that his second preference is to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, he had further signed in acknowledgment of the declaration made in the application declaring that all the information given by him are true and correct and that it is within his knowledge that in the event of furnishing incorrect and false information, proceedings can be initiated against him. It is further declared that the choice for the posts which have been given by him, he has fulfilled all the prescribed eligibility i.e. age limit, educational qualifications, experience, physical measurement etc. for those posts. It is also indicated that if he was found ineligible at any stage of selection, his candidature can be cancelled. The declaration is explicit that the choice of preference to the post has been made by him since according to him he has fulfilled the prescribed eligibility criteria, including physical measurement. 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. In such event, the authority concerned on perusal of the application would presuppose that such physical eligibility criteria is possessed by the candidate concerned and he therefore has made his choice for the post. In such event if the marks required for the said post is obtained by the candidate, he would be included in the main selection list. Though, the appointment is a subsequent act which would take place on verifying the details and the candidate being found to be eligible, the right of a candidate for selection will stand exhausted once he is in the main list as per the Rule. Clause (c)(2) of the Rule4 (3) concerned employs the phrase “selected in the main list” and “not appointed to the post”. [Para 16][989A-G]
1.3 The selection for all the posts in the instant case were through a single advertisement and common examination. The selection process conducted by the appellant for the benefit of the departments under the government was not one post after the other on completing the entire process to the higher post. Since, a common examination was held and the common merit list was prepared, the adjustment of the candidates were based on their preference according to their order in the merit list. The respondent No.1 having declared that he possessed the physical eligibility for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and since he had obtained the requisite marks he was selected and placed in the main selection list. It is true as indicated from the records that another Scheduled Caste candidates who had secured 892 marks had been given the post of CMO as per the preference indicated by him. When such is the process of selection, if the respondent No.1 who had made declaration about the correctness of his eligibility and secured the selection to be placed in the main list for the said post, he has to blame himself if found ineligible since his height was admittedly 162 cms. which was in fact within his knowledge. He ought not to have exercised the preference. But having acted so at that stage, if he seeks appointment to the next preferred post and such request is accepted, it will result in displacing a candidate who having made a truthful declaration had indicated the appropriate preference, who is selected and placed in the main list. Therefore, in such circumstance, if any interference is made in the process of selection, apart from the fact that it could interfere with the administrative process would also cause hardship to the candidates who have already been appointed and are not before this Court. In the present facts and circumstances, the Rule concerned provides for a definite process, which was also depicted in the advertisement calling for applications. The Rule is not under challenge. The order dated 03.01.2019 and 08.11.2019 are set aside. The writ petition is dismissed. [Paras 19, 20][991-B-H; 992-A]
R.L. Arora vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. AIR 1964 SC 1230, Surjit vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam
Limited 2009 16 SCC 722 : [2008] 6 SCR 683; Union of India and Ors.vs. Major General Madan Lal Yadav (Retd.) (1996) 4 SCC 127 : [1996] 3 SCR 785; D.G. Dalal vs. State of Gujarat (2002) 2GLR 1011 – held inapplicable.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.