Summary
The Court rejected a candidate’s claim to consideration for a lower-preference post after selection for Deputy Superintendent of Police failed because he did not meet the advertised height requirement. Under the applicable rules, inclusion in the main list for a higher preference excluded consideration for remaining preferences. The candidate had expressly declared that he met the physical requirements. Reopening his preferences after the common selection process would prejudice candidates selected on truthful declarations. The Commission’s appeal was allowed and the writ petition dismissed.
Issues
- Whether a candidate selected in the main list for a higher-preference post could demand consideration for a lower preference after failing the former’s physical eligibility requirement.
Provisions considered
- Rule 4(3)(c)(1) and (2), Madhya Pradesh State Civil Services Rules, 2015Recommendations followed merit and preference; selection in the main list for a higher preference excluded consideration for remaining preferences. (¶¶ 7, 14-16, 19)
Held
- The rule attached exclusion from further preferences to selection in the main list, rather than subsequent appointment after verification. Merit and preference were applied simultaneously across posts through a common examination and selection process. (¶¶ 14-16, 19)
- The candidate had declared that he possessed the prescribed physical eligibility, including height, for his chosen posts. Having obtained selection for Deputy Superintendent of Police on that basis, he could not claim a different post when verification revealed that he lacked the required height. (¶¶ 15-16, 19)
- Granting the requested alteration after finalisation would displace eligible candidates who had correctly declared their qualifications and preferences. The rule was unchallenged, and the candidate had participated accepting the advertised conditions. Decisions addressing different recruitment rules and later vacancies did not justify relief. (¶ 17-19)
Result
Commission’s appeal allowed without costs; High Court orders set aside and candidate’s writ petition dismissed.