LexDEEPENDRA YADAV AND OTHERS versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [2024] 6 S.C.R. 36 : 2024 INSC 362 Deependra Yadav and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others (Civil Appeal No. 5604 of 2024) 01 May 2024 [C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration (i) Whether a fault can be found in the process of normalization and the consequential merger of the marks secured by the candidates who appeared in the two main examinations; (ii) Whether the Rule 4(3)(d)(III) of the Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015 patently harmed the interest of the reservation category candidates. Headnotes Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015 – The Single Judge of the High Court invalidated the decision taken by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC) on 10.10.2022, proposing to hold a fresh main examination by cancelling the earlier one, and directed the MPPSC to hold a special main examination, for the new eligible reservation category candidates, as per the redrawn preliminary examination result – The Single Judge also directed that, on the basis of the results of these two main examinations, a fresh list of selected candidates should be prepared in terms of the Rules, 2015 for the interview, by merging and normalizing the two lists, as per the process adopted by the MPPSC on previous occasions – By judgment dated 25.01.2023, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the order passed by the Single Judge was just, proper and well-reasoned – Correctness: Held: In State of U.P. and Others vs. Atul Kumar Dwivedi and others, the Supreme Court concluded that the exercise undertaken in adopting the process of normalization was quite consistent with the requirements of law – It was also observed that decisions made by expert bodies, including the Public Service Commissions, should not be lightly interfered with, unless instances of arbitrary and malafide exercise of power are made out – In the instant [2024] 6 S.C.R. 37 Deependra Yadav and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others case, two experts, who had guided the MPPSC in undertaking the process of normalization, appeared before the Court to explain the methodology adopted – The experts satisfied the Court that a transparent process was adopted to bring all the candidates onto an even platform so as to finalise the list of candidates eligible to be interviewed – This was done by applying a formula uniformly to the marks secured by all the candidates who appeared in the two main examinations, so that their marks would become comparable and enable preparation of a unified marks list – No lacuna in the process adopted or formula applied – Therefore, the process of normalization and the consequential merger of the marks secured by the candidates who appeared in the two main examinations cannot be found fault with – Thus, the impugned judgment dated 25.01.2023 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court upheld. [Paras 26, 27, 29] Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015 – Rule 4 – Amendment on 17.02.2020 – Recall of amendment on 20.12.2021 – Omission of Rule 4(3)(d)(III): Held: The amendment effected on 17.02.2020 brought about a sea change in the methodology of Rule 4 – The amended Rule 4 of the Rules of 2015 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 – Thereafter, on 20.12.2021, the Rules of 2015 were again amended – The position existing prior to the amendment effected on 17.02.2020 was restored – Further, the amended Rule 4(3)(d) (III) was altogether omitted from the Rules of 2015 – The result of such omission and Rule 4(1)(a)(ii), as it presently reads, 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 – 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 candi
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.