MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION versus MANISH BAKAWALE & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 9 S.C.R. 978 · Decided: 17-12-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
978
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 9 S.C.R.
MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
v.
MANISH BAKAWALE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7721 of 2021)
DECEMBER 17, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
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
   [2021] 9 S.C.R. 978
978
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
979
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 prescrib

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.