Skip to content
Home » Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Manish Bakawale

Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Manish Bakawale

M.P. State Civil Services Rules, 2015 – Rule 4(3)(c)(1) and (2) – If a candidate is selected in the main list on the basis of the higher priority of post given by him in the preference sheet, he/she will not be considered for the remaining post(s) of preference sheet.

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 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 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. [Para 19]

Case Law Reference

  1. Surjit v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (2009) 16 SCC 722
  2. D.G. Dalal v. State of Gujarat, (2002) 2 GLR 1011
  3. Union of India v. Major General Madan Lal Yadav, (1996) 4 SCC 127
  4. R.L. Arora v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1230

Case Link :

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 1 Average: 5]