Candidate Cannot Alter Declaration Given About Correctness Of Details During Selection Process : Supreme Court

During a selection process, a candidate cannot attempt to deviate from a declaration made regarding the correctness of the detail furnished by him, so as to affect the position of others, held the Supreme Court in a recent decision.

A bench comprising Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna observed so while allowing an appeal filed by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission. The MP High Court had allowed a candidate to opt for his next preferred post, accepting his claim that he had given wrong particulars about his height/

Terming the High Court's judgment as unjustified, the Supreme Court observed in the case  Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Manish Bakawale & Ors:

"The candidate concerned had applied without demur and also furnished a declaration with regard to correctness of details provided. He cannot thereafter turn around to seek alteration of the position to the detriment of others"

Factual Background

Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission issued an advertisement dated March 17, 2016 inviting online application from eligible candidates for the State Service Examination 2016 for the various categories of posts under the State of Madhya Pradesh in different departments. The last date for submitting the application was shown April 14, 2016, and the preliminary examination was scheduled to be held on May 29, 2016.

The educational qualification and other criteria were the same for all the posts advertised except the age limit being different as specified. That apart, for the posts of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Assistant Jail Superintendent and Deputy Transport Inspector, specific Physical Measurement was indicated as the minimum eligibility criteria. Therefore, the candidates satisfying the eligibility criteria could choose their order of preference to the various posts that were advertised.

Manish Bakawale submitted his application and his second preference shown was for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, which could have been opted by a candidate if the candidate satisfied the minimum required physical measurement. He applied under the Scheduled Caste ('SC') category and secured 892 marks out of 1575 marks which were not sufficient in the order of merit to be selected for the post as per his first preference, namely Deputy District Collector.

Since the same was sufficient to be placed in the merit list for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, he was included in the main list for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police by the appellant. In compliance with the remaining formalities for appointment, Manish appeared before the Medical Board when it was found that his height was only 162 cms as against the prescribed minimum height of 168 cms which made him ineligible to be appointed to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police.

Manish thus approached the High Court claiming that he was entitled to be appointed to the post of CMO since he had obtained 892 marks. The Single Judge accepted the contention and allowed the writ.

The bench took note of Rule 4(3)(c)(2) of M.P. State Civil Services Rules, 2015 and concluded that that the Rule was clear that if the candidate was selected in the main list, then he/she would not be considered for the remaining post of preference made.

It thus concluded that though Manish was selected in the main list on the basis of the higher priority of post, he could not be appointed on the said post as he had not qualified on the benchmark regarding his height and as such he should be considered in the next preferred post of Chief Municipal Officer ("CMO").

The same was also approved by the Division Bench. Aggrieved, the Commission approached the Top Court.

Submission Of Counsels

Dr Harsh Pathak appeared for Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission and Advocate Pawan Reley for the respondent.

Dr Harsh Pathak contended that the respondent after understanding the instructions and taking note of the eligibility and requirements indicated his second preference to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. He further contended that such preference exercised would be to the effect that the respondent satisfied the eligibility requirement of physical measurement as declared by him and had therefore opted for the said post.

Counsel further contended that after inclusion in the main list, the respondent would stand excluded from further consideration for any other post even if shown as next preference and the remaining candidates would be considered for the post that they have preferred based on the eligibility criteria and the marks obtained by such candidates. Counsel further argued that when in the preferred post, the respondent was found ineligible to be appointed in that post, he could not turn around to seek appointment in the next preferred post when already the persons eligible were considered for such post and the main list is finalised.

Advocate Pawan Reley appearing for the respondent submitted that the Rule could not be taken note in such a narrow perspective. Counsel further argued that the physical criteria could not be a bar merely because at the time of medical examination the benchmark was not reached.

Supreme Court's Analysis

The bench in the judgement authored by Justice AS Bopanna considered that the advertisement indicated the requirement of the Rule that a candidate who had preferred the higher of the posts which had been advertised would be selected against such post depending on the merit in the examination.

Reference was also made to rule 4(3) (c)(2) of Rules 2015 which stated that category ­wise recommendation of the candidates would be made according to the marks obtained by them and the preference sheet submitted by the candidate.

Reliance was also placed on Clause (2) of Sub­Rule (3) which further clarified that if a candidate was selected in the main list on the basis of the higher priority of the post given by him in the preference sheet, the candidate would not be considered for the remaining post indicated in the preference sheet.

While allowing the appeal, the bench observed that,

"As noted, 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 candidate 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 circumstances, 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."

 Case Title: Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Manish Bakawale & Ors

Coram: Justices DY Chandrachud and AS Bopanna

Citation : LL 2021 SC 761

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment