‘Really Shocking, Trying To Harass Eligible Candidates’, High Court Pulls Up MP Public Service Commission For Misdirected Recruitment Process

In a significant order that has alleviated the concerns of eligible candidates, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has given strict directions to the State Public Service Commission (MPPSC) to comply with the High Court’s judgment in Vaishali Wadhwani and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh.

While disposing the petition filed by one of the candidates, the high court observed that the conduct of PSC towards the eligible candidates despite being fully aware of the legal provisions was ‘really shocking’ and can only be interpreted as a ‘new method of harassing eligible candidates’.

“Once this Court had found the procedure adopted by the PSC was incorrect and contrary to the judgment passed by this Court in W.P. No.23828/2022 dated 29.11.2022, which was affirmed by the Writ Appellate Court, then the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Vaishali Wadhwani was a ‘judgment in rem’ and not ‘judgment in personam’. It is really shocking that the PSC without adhering to the legal provisions of law is taking decisions on its own as per its own whims and wishes…”, a single judge bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia noted in the order.

Before the High Court, MPPSC had taken a stand that the directions issued in Vaishali Wadhwani would solely apply to the petitioners in that specific case and not to the entire set of candidates who have qualified for the interview after the main examination. Justice G.S Ahluwalia found this contention of the MPPSC particularly confounding.

“…the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Vaishali Wadhwani (supra) is a ‘judgment in rem’ and it will apply to all those candidates who had passed out the main examination conducted in first round of recruitment drive. The respondent No.2 shall not discriminate by holding that the candidate has not approached the Court, therefore, he is not entitled for the fruits of the judgment passed by this Court in the case of Vaishali Wadhwani”, the court laid down the applicability of the erstwhile directions in unambiguous terms.

Developments Prior To The Case

The petitioner was challenging the corrigendum issued by PSC on 21.09.2023 which stated that only those who have previously approached the court with writ petitions and received favourable orders were eligible for the next stage of recruitment drive, i.e., the interview process.

In Harshit Jain and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Another (W.P. No.23828/2022), decided on 29.11.2022, a co-ordinate bench had directed the MPPSC to conduct a special main examination for 2721 meritorious candidates of reserved category, who are entitled to be placed in the unreserved category. The court then remarked that a fresh list of select candidates derived from the eligible candidates of the ‘Mains’ and ‘Special Mains’ can be prepared by merging and normalising the two lists. At the same time, the court observed that there was no requirement to quash the results of the main examination and conduct fresh Mains since that would give an undue advantage to the 8894 candidates who couldn’t clear the Mains in the first attempt. This would also be prejudicial to the 1918 select list candidates (unreserved candidates) who have already cleared the Main Examination, the court observed back then.

When PSC attempted to move forward with the recruitment by issuing a corrigendum on 31.01.2023 that was based on a misinterpretation of Harshit Jain, the High Court stepped forward in Vaishali Wadhwani and Others v. The State of Madhya Pradesh to ensure that PSC followed the correct procedure. In an expansive judgment, the High Court made it clear that the PSC does not have the liberty to adopt the doctrine of merger and normalization by including even those 8894 candidates, who could not qualify for the main examination on the earlier occasion. The court added that they are not entitled to a reconsideration of their candidature for interview, after the merger and normalization of marks using the results of the preliminary examination, which was explicitly prohibited by the court in Harshit Jain.

Later, PSC issued another corrigendum on 21.09.2023, once again based on a wrong appreciation of the judgment in Vaishali Wadhwani, which has been challenged by the petitioner candidate.

Further Observations

The court observed that the writ appellate court’s judgment in Vaishali Wadhwani has left no scope for ambiguity as to whether it is a judgment in rem and or judgment in personam.

“ Earlier the PSC had blatantly violated the order passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Harshit Jain (supra) and once this Court had held that the action of the PSC in adopting a strange procedure which was specifically forbidden by the court in the case of Harshit Jain (supra) was bad and accordingly it was quashed and it was specifically mentioned that only 1918 candidates were entitled for normalization of marks, then, now the PSC has adopted a new method of harassing the eligible candidates by making it applicable only to those persons who had approached this Court. This conduct of PSC cannot be appreciated at all. The PSC must act in accordance with the law”, the single judge bench iterated the court’s displeasure on the procedure adopted by the PSC.

During the course of proceedings, the counsel for MPPSC also fairly conceded that the judgment in Vaishali Wadhwani was not a ‘judgment in personam’ when it specifically states that 1918 candidates from unreserved category would be entitled to normalisation of their marks based on the Main Examination.

“It is really shocking that inspite of the fact that respondent No.2 is aware of the legal proposition of law still is trying to harass the candidates”, the court added in the concluding remarks.

Accordingly, the petition was disposed off with fresh directions to the respondent authorities for the next stage of the recruitment process.

Advocate Anshul Tiwary appeared for the petitioner. Advocates Swati Aseem George and Parag Tiwari appeared for Respondents 1 and 2 respectively.

Case Title: Priyanka Pandey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Case No: Writ Petition No. 25087 of 2023

Click Here To Read/ Download Order