Inside Supreme Court verdict on treatment of meritorious reserved category candidates in MP State Service Exam

Supreme Court: In an appeal against the Judgment of the division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, wherein the Court upheld the direction of the Single Judge that, based on the results of the two main examinations, a fresh list of selected candidates should be prepared in terms of the Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015 (‘Rules of 2015’) for the interview, by merging and normalizing the two lists, as per the process adopted by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commissions (‘MPPSC’) on previous occasions, the division bench of C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar*, JJ. while upholding the impugned judgment, held that the process of normalization and the consequential merger of the marks secured by the candidates who appeared in the two main examinations cannot be found fault with. Thus, the meritorious candidates from reserved categories, who did not avail reservation benefits, should be treated as general-category candidates based on their marks.

Background:

The MPPSC issued an advertisement on 14-11-2019 proposing to select candidates for 571 posts in the State services in accordance with the Rules, 2015. The MPSS Examination, 2019 was scheduled to be held by the MPPSC for filling up these posts, by conducting a preliminary examination followed by the main examination and interviews. The preliminary examination took place on 12-01-2020. At that stage, on 17-02-2020, Rule 4 (Mode of preparation of select list) of the Rules of 2015 was amended by the State of Madhya Pradesh. Rule 4.

The Court took note of Rule 4 that stood prior to the amendment and said that the result of the preliminary examination was to be declared by clubbing meritorious reservation category candidates, who had not availed any reservation benefit, with the meritorious unreserved category candidates and not with their respective reservation category candidates.

The Court remarked that the amendment effected on 17-02-2020 brought about a sea change in this methodology. The amended Rule provided that adjustment and segregation of meritorious reservation category candidates with meritorious unreserved category candidates would be only at the time of final selection and not at the time of the preliminary/main examination.

The Court noted that amended Rule 4 was applied to the ongoing recruitment process relating to the notified 571 vacant posts. The result of the preliminary examination conducted on 12-01-2020 was declared on 21-12-2020, applying the amended Rule 4. Thus, there was no segregation of meritorious reservation category candidates with those from the unreserved category and they were shown in their respective reservation categories only.

Thus, the amended Rule 4(3)(d)(III) of the Rules of 2015 was challenged by some of the candidates in a batch of writ petitions before the High Court. By interim order, the High Court directed that the recruitment process initiated pursuant to the preliminary examination result shall remain subject to the outcome of the writ petitions. Pursuant thereto, the MPPSC conducted the main examination of the Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination-2019. While so, on 20-12-2021, the Rules of 2015 were again amended by the State of Madhya Pradesh. Thereby, the position existing prior to the amendment was restored.

Further, the amended Rule 4(3)(d)(III) was altogether omitted from the Rules of 2015. The result of such omission and Rule 4(1)(a)(ii), is that meritorious reservation category candidates, who did not avail any benefit of relaxation, are to be clubbed with meritorious unreserved category candidates at the time of declaring the result of the preliminary examination itself. In effect, status quo ante was restored.

Notwithstanding this amendment, the result of the main examination was declared by the MPPSC and the number of candidates who provisionally qualified for interviews were 1918. However, by judgment dated 07-04-2022, a Division Bench of the High Court partly allowed the pending writ petitions. Challenge in this batch of cases was not only to the validity of amended Rule 4(3)(d)(III) of the Rules of 2015, but also to Section 4(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 (‘Adhiniyam’). The Division Bench upheld the validity of Section 4(4) of the Adhiniyam but declared Rule 4(3)(d)(III) of the Rules of 2015 ultra vires and set it aside. The Division Bench also directed that the recruitment process must be conducted and completed in consonance with the unamended Rules of 2015.

Thereupon, the MPPSC issued Advertisement proposing to reconduct the main examination in compliance with the Division Bench judgment. The MPPSC declared the revised result of the preliminary examination, in tune with the unamended Rule 4 of the Rules of 2015. In consequence, 13,080 candidates were declared qualified for the main examination, instead of the 10,767 candidates declared eligible earlier, as per amended Rule 4(3)(d) (III).

Some candidates filed a petition before the High Court against the decision of the MPPSC to cancel the result of the main examination held earlier, on the ground that they would be required to reappear for the said examination despite clearing it in the first instance. The High Court directed that, based on the results of these two main examinations, a fresh list of selected candidates should be prepared in terms of the Rules of 2015 for the interview, by merging and normalizing the two lists, as per the process adopted by the MPPSC on previous occasions. Aggrieved by this judgment, three of the petitioners preferred an appeal before a Division Bench, wherein the Court upheld the order being just, proper and well-reasoned. Thus, the present appeal was filed.

Analysis:

The Court noted that the special main examination for the reservation category candidates who were declared eligible, in terms of the revised preliminary examination result, was conducted, and their results were also declared after normalizing and merging the results of both the main examinations.

The Court further noted that MPPSC then issued Notification calling upon the 1983 selected candidates to appear for the interviews. Some of the ousted 398 candidates filed writ petitions before the High Court and were granted interim relief, by permitting them also to appear for the interviews.

The Court noted that State of Madhya Pradesh proceeded on the strength of the results declared after the normalization and also issued appointment orders to the selected candidates, thereby enabling them to join service.

After hearing the two experts who had guided the MPPSC in undertaking the process of normalization, the Court was satisfied that a transparent process, which was completely above board, was adopted to bring all the candidates onto an even platform to finalize the list of candidates eligible to be interviewed. This was done by applying a formula uniformly to the marks secured by all the candidates who appeared in the two main examinations, so that their marks would become comparable and enable preparation of a unified marks list.

The Court noted that Rule 4(3)(d)(III) of the Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015 (‘Rules, 2015’) patently harmed the interests of the reservation category candidates, as even meritorious candidates from such categories, who had not availed any reservation benefit/relaxation, were to be treated as belonging to those reservation categories and they were not to be segregated with meritorious unreserved category candidates at the preliminary examination result stage. As a result, they continued to occupy the reservation category slots which would have otherwise gone to deserving reservation category candidates lower down in the merit list of that category, had they been included with meritorious unreserved category candidates on the strength of their marks.

After referring to Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P., (2021) 4 SCC 542 the Court said that it appears that the State of Madhya Pradesh itself realized the harm that it was doing to the reservation category candidates and chose to restore Rule 4, as it stood earlier, which enabled drawing up the result of the preliminary examination by segregating deserving meritorious reservation category candidates with meritorious unreserved category candidates at the preliminary examination stage itself.

Thus, the Court upheld the impugned judgment of the High Court, holding that the process of normalization and the consequential merger of the marks secured by the candidates who appeared in the two main examinations cannot be found fault with.