Holding

A candidate selected in the main list for a higher‑priority post under Rule 4(3)(c)(2) cannot be considered for any other post, even if later found ineligible, and the declaration of eligibility bars subsequent claim for another post.

Summary

The Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC) advertised a State Service Examination for various posts. Respondent No.1, an SC candidate, applied with a preference order of Deputy District Collector, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), and Chief Municipal Officer (CMO). He scored 892 marks, insufficient for the first preference but sufficient for DSP, and declared that he met all eligibility criteria, including the 168 cm height requirement for DSP. He was placed in the main list for DSP but was later found ineligible because his height was 162 cm. He petitioned for appointment to the next preferred post (CMO), citing that another SC candidate with the same marks had been appointed to that post. The High Court allowed the petition, but the Supreme Court held that Rule 4(3)(c)(2) of the MP State Civil Services Rules, 2015, clearly bars a candidate selected in the main list for a higher‑priority post from being considered for other posts, even if later found ineligible, especially after making a declaration of eligibility. Consequently, the High Court's order was set aside and the writ petition dismissed. The appeal was allowed.

Issues considered

Whether a candidate selected in the main list for a higher‑priority post, but later found ineligible on physical criteria, can be considered for the next preferred post.
Interpretation of Rule 4(3)(c)(2) of the Madhya Pradesh State Civil Services Rules, 2015.
The effect of the candidate's declaration that he fulfills all eligibility requirements.
Whether the High Court erred in directing appointment to the next preferred post.

Legislation cited

Madhya Pradesh State Civil Services Ruless. 4(3)(c)(1), s. 4(3)(c)(2)

Subjects

service lawrecruitmentpreference sheeteligibility criteriaphysical measurementMPPSCrule interpretationmerit listappointmentSC reservation

Judgment

978 [2021]
SUPREME COURT 9 S.C.R. 978
REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R.

A MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
v.
MANISH BAKAWALE & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7721 of 2021)
B DECEMBER 17, 2021
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD AND
A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
M.P. State Civil Services Rules, 2015 – r.4(3)(c)(1),(2) –
Appellant issued advertisement inviting applications for State
C Service Examination for various posts in different departments –
Respondent no.1 (SC category candidate) gave his order of
preference as- Deputy District Collector, Deputy Superintendent of
Police (DSP) and Chief Municipal Officer (CMO) – 892 marks
obtained by the respondent no.1 were not sufficient for the post of
D his first preference – Considered for the post of DSP, his second
preference – However, was found ineligible as he did not meet the
additional eligibility criteria of minimum physical measurement for
the said post – Respondent no.1 filed writ petition claiming that a
candidate belonging to SC category who had also secured 892
marks was appointed to the post of CMO, thus he is also entitled to
E be appointed to the post of CMO – Allowed by Single Judge –
Affirmed by Division Bench – Held: Advertisement indicated the
requirement of the Rule that a candidate who had preferred the
higher of the posts advertised would be selected against such post
depending on the merit – Clause (2) of sub-rule (3) clarifies that if
F a candidate is selected in the main list on the basis of the higher
priority of the post given by him in the preference sheet, he will not
be considered for the remaining post indicated therein – Rule is not
under challenge – Apart from indicating that his second preference
is the post of DSP, respondent no.1 also signed a declaration –
Declaration was explicit that the choice of preference to the post
G was made by him since according to him he fulfilled the prescribed
eligibility criteria, including physical measurement– Respondent no.1
who made declaration about the correctness of his eligibility and
was included in the main list for the said post, has to blame himself
if found ineligible since his height was admittedly 162 cms which
was within his knowledge – He ought not to have exercised the
H
978
MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. 979
MANISH BAKAWALE & ORS.

preference – But having acted so at that stage, if respondent no.1’s A
request for appointment to the next preferred post is accepted, it
will displace a candidate who having made a truthful declaration
indicated the appropriate preference, and is selected and placed in
the main list – Writ petition dismissed – Service Law.
Allowing the appeal, the Court B
HELD 1.1 Though several posts were advertised and
the applications were sought from the eligible candidates, the
preliminary and written examination was common and the marks
as obtained in the said examination was taken into consideration
to include the candidates based on merit to the post for which C
the candidate concerned had given his preference. The
advertisement had indicated the requirement of the Rule that a
candidate who had preferred the higher of the posts which has
been advertised would be selected against such post depending
on the merit in the examination. To that extent Rule 4(3)(c)(2) of
Rules 2015 is clear and specific that the category-wise D
recommendation of the candidates will be made according to the
marks obtained by them and the preference sheet submitted by
the candidate. Clause (2) of Sub-Rule (3) further clarifies that if a
candidate is selected in the main list on the basis of the higher
priority of the post given by him in the preference sheet, the E
candidate will not be considered for the remaining post indicated
in the preference sheet. [Para 14][988-B-E]
1.2 The additional eligibility criteria for the post of DSP
which had been clearly depicted in the advertisement calling for
applications was within the knowledge of respondent No.1. The F
minimum height prescribed for the said post was 168 cms. The
application submitted by the respondent No.1 apart from indicating
that his second preference is to the post of Deputy Superintendent
of Police, he had further signed in acknowledgment of the
declaration made in the application declaring that all the
information given by him are true and correct and that it is within G
his knowledge that in the event of furnishing incorrect and false
information, proceedings can be initiated against him. It is further
declared that the choice for the posts which have been given by
him, he has fulfilled all the prescribed eligibility i.e. age limit,
educational qualifications, experience, physical measurement etc. H
980 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R.

A for those posts. It is also indicated that if he was found ineligible
at any stage of selection, his candidature can be cancelled. The
declaration is explicit that the choice of preference to the post
has been made by him since according to him he has fulfilled the
prescribed eligibility criteria, including physical measurement.
If that be the position, the positive declaration made by the
B
respondent No.1 is that he satisfies the minimum eligibility of
168 cms. height required for the post he has preferred which is
the higher post than the next preference. In such event, the
authority concerned on perusal of the application would
presuppose that such physical eligibility criteria is possessed by
C the candidate concerned and he therefore has made his choice
for the post. In such event if the marks required for the said post
is obtained by the candidate, he would be included in the main
selection list. Though, the appointment is a subsequent act which
would take place on verifying the details and the candidate being
found to be eligible, the right of a candidate for selection will
D
stand exhausted once he is in the main list as per the Rule. Clause
(c)(2) of the Rule4 (3) concerned employs the phrase “selected
in the main list” and “not appointed to the post”. [Para 16][989-
A-G]
1.3 The selection for all the posts in the instant case were
E 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
F 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
G 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
H
MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. 981
MANISH BAKAWALE & ORS.

in the main list for the said post, he has to blame himself if found A
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
B
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 C
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 order dated 03.01.2019 and 08.11.2019 are set
aside. The writ petition is dismissed. [Paras 19, 20][991-B-H;
D
992-A]
R.L. Arora vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. AIR 1964
SC 1230, Surjit vs. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam
Limited 2009 16 SCC 722 : [2008] 6 SCR 683; Union
of India and Ors.vs. Major General Madan Lal Yadav
(Retd.) (1996) 4 SCC 127 : [1996] 3 SCR 785; D.G. E
Dalal vs. State of Gujarat (2002) 2GLR 1011 – held
inapplicable.
Case Law Reference
[2008] 6 SCR 683 held inapplicable Para 17
[1996] 3 SCR 785 held inapplicable Para 17 F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.7721
of 2021.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.11.2019 of the High Court
of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Indore in W.A. No.474 of 2019.
G
Dr. Harsh Pathak, Ms. Shaveta Mahajan, Mohit Choubey,
Siddhartha Shukla, Advs. for the Appellant.
Pawan Reley, Ankit Mishra, Akshay Lodhi, Sajal Awasthi, Mohan
Singh, Ankit Chaudhary, Ms. Vishakha Deshwal, Ms. Lara Siddiqui, Arun
Singh, Vinod Sharma, Advs. for the Respondents.
H
982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R.

A The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
A. S. BOPANNA, J.
1. The appellant-Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission is
assailing the order dated 08.11.2019 passed by the High Court of Madhya
Pradesh in W.A. No.474 of 2019. Through the said order the learned
B Division Bench of the High Court has dismissed the intra-court appeal
filed by the appellant herein. In doing so, the learned Division Bench has
affirmed the order dated 03.01.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge
of that Court in W.P. No.20855 of 2017. The learned Single Judge, had
thereby allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents in the writ
C petition, which included the appellant herein to consider the case of
respondent No.1 herein for appointment on the post of the Chief Municipal
Officer (‘CMO’ for short) Grade-Kh, Assistant Director or any other
post mentioned by the respondent No.1 in his preference letter.
2. The facts in a nutshell are that the appellant issued an
D advertisement No.2 dated 17.03.2016 inviting online application from
eligible candidates for the State Service Examination 2016 for the various
category of posts under the State of Madhya Pradesh in different
departments. The advertisement was exhaustive providing detailed
information and it clearly indicated the eligibility criteria. The last date
for submitting the application was shown as 14.04.2016 and the preliminary
E examination was scheduled to be held on 29.05.2016. 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
F 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.
3. The respondent No.1 submitted his application and had shown
his order of preference. The second preference shown was for the post
G of Deputy Superintendent of Police, which could have been opted by a
candidate if the candidate satisfied the minimum required physical
measurement. Pursuant to such applications, the preliminary examination
and the written examination was conducted. The respondent who had
applied under the Scheduled Caste (‘SC’ for short) category had secured
892 marks out of 1575 marks. The marks obtained by the respondent
H
MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. 983
MANISH BAKAWALE & ORS. [A. S. BOPANNA, J.]

No.1 was not sufficient in the order of merit to be selected for the post A
as per his first preference, namely Deputy District Collector. However,
the marks secured was sufficient to be placed in the merit list for the
post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Accordingly, the respondent
No.1 was included in the main list for the post of Deputy Superintendent
of Police by the appellant. In compliance with the remaining formalities
B
for appointment the respondent No.1 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. The respondent No.1 was
therefore not eligible to be appointed to the post of Deputy Superintendent
of Police.
4. It is in the above backdrop the respondent No.1 approached C
the High Court since as per the appointment made to the other posts it
revealed that a schedule caste candidate who had secured 892 marks
was appointed to the post of CMO. The respondent No.1 having shown
his subsequent preference for CMO in his application form claimed that
in such event he having obtained 892 marks was entitled to be appointed D
in the post of CMO. The learned Single Judge having accepted such
contention had allowed the writ petition and directed consideration. The
learned Division Bench approved the same. It is in that circumstance
the appellant, which is the authority saddled with the responsibility of
undertaking the selection process is before this Court in this appeal.
E
5. We have heard Dr. Harsh Pathak, learned counsel for the
appellant, Mr. Pawan Reley, learned counsel for the contesting respondent
and perused the appeal papers.
6. At the outset, a perusal of the order passed by the learned
Division Bench would indicate that it has merely taken note of the F
consideration made by the learned Single Judge by extracting the order
passed in the writ proceedings before affirming the same. In that light,
on adverting to the order passed by the learned Single Judge it would
reveal that the learned Judge on taking note of Rule 4(3)(c)(2) of M.P.
State Civil Services Rules, 2015 has arrived at the conclusion that the
Rule is clear that if the candidate is selected in the main list, then he/she G
will not be considered for the remaining post of preference made.
However, the learned Single Judge has thereafter arrived at the conclusion
that though the respondent No.1 was selected in the main list on the
basis of the higher priority of post, he could not be appointed on the said
H
984 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R.

A post as he had not qualified on the benchmark regarding his height and
as such he should be considered in the next preferred post.
7. Dr. Harsh Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant while
assailing such conclusion reached by the High Court has made detailed
reference to the Rules, more particularly Rule 4(3)(c)(1) and (2) of the
B Rules. It would be appropriate to take note of Rule 4(3)(c)(1) and (2)
which read as hereunder: -
“Category wise recommendation of the candidates, for any specific
service/post will be made according to the marks obtained by
them and preference sheet (if any) submitted by them.
C 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.”
8. In that light, the learned counsel has also referred to the
D advertisement which contains the details of the requirement and the
qualification for the post. Since the respondent No.1 had indicated his
second preference to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police and
the issue presently is with regard to the wrong preference made by him
and in that light, the claim for next preference to the post of CMO, the
E requirement of the physical measurement for the post of Deputy
Superintendent of Police explicitly stated in the advertisement needs to
be noted, which is as hereunder: -
Physical Measurement:
The physical measurement prescribed for the posts of Deputy
F Superintendent of Police, Assistant Jail Superintendent and Deputy
Transport Inspector are as under:

G

H
MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. 985
MANISH BAKAWALE & ORS. [A. S. BOPANNA, J.]

9. In that background reference is made to the application A
submitted by the respondent No.1(Annexure P2) wherein the order of
preference is given. The preference for Deputy Superintendent of Police
is at No.2 while the preference for the post of CMO is at No.16, but the
fact remains that the preferences are indicated. However, what is
relevant to be noted is the declaration which is required to be made by B
the candidate in the application, which reads as hereunder: -
“DECLARATION
* I, hereby declare that all the aforesaid information given by
me are true and correct to the best of my belief, and nothing
material is concealed. It is well within my knowledge that C
in the event of furnishing of incorrect and false information
the criminal proceedings can be initiated against me. Along
with this the benefits received and granted by the
Commission can be declared null and void at any stage/
time. D
* I had read over and understood the instructions of
Commission word to word and I hereby undertake to
comply the same.
* I also hereby declare that the choice for which posts
E
have been given by me, I fulfilled all the prescribed
eligibility i.e. age limit, educational qualification,
experience, physical measurement etc. for those
posts.
* On being found ineligible at any stage of selection, F
before selection or thereafter my candidature can be
cancelled at any time for which I will be solely
responsible.
10. The learned counsel has also referred to the online precedence/
priority form with reference to the instructions contained therein concerning G
to eligibility and the warning, to which the applicant i.e., respondent No.1
herein has declared as having understood all the stipulations and has
undertaken to abide by the same. The relevant instructions and the
warning, as also the undertaking read as hereunder:-
H
986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R.

A “INSTRUCTIONS CONCERNING TO ELIGIBILITY:
• It may be ensured at the time of filling of precedence/priority
form the priority for which posts have been given the
candidate is having all the eligibility criteria for those posts.
• While giving preference for the uniform posts, applicant
B should ensure that he fulfils all the terms and conditions of
physical criteria’s.
WARNING:
• If the precedence/priority form is submitted for the selection
of uniform post by the candidate/applicant then the applicant
C his/her own may ensure that he/she is fulfilling all the terms
prescribed for age limit, educational qualification and
prescribed physical measurement for the advertised posts
applied by him/her. If any error/mistake in the information
provided by the applicant shall be found then the Commission
shall be having the right to cancel the candidature because
D
of submitting erroneous information the candidate/eligibility
of such candidate/applicant prior to selection or thereafter
at any stage can be cancelled for which the applicant shall
be solely responsible for the same.
• On furnishing/submitting erroneous information by the
E candidate/applicant, it will be considered as grave error and
on being found erroneous selection of applicant the same
can be cancelled for which the applicant himself/herself
shall be responsible.
I, Agree – I hereby declare that, I have read and understood all
F the stipulations given in the advertisement, corrigendum’s and
hereby undertake to abide by them.
Sd/- Illegible
Manish Bakawale
02.06.2017"
G 11. In that view, it is contended that the respondent No.1 having
understood the instructions and also having taken note of the eligibility
and requirements has indicated his second preference to the post of
Deputy Superintendent of Police. Such preference exercised would be
to the effect that the respondent No.1 satisfies the eligibility requirement
of physical measurement as declared by him and has therefore opted
H
MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. 987
MANISH BAKAWALE & ORS. [A. S. BOPANNA, J.]

for the said post. In that background, the appellant while taking note of A
the preference and the marks obtained in the examination had included
his name in the main list as the candidate who had obtained 892 marks in
the order of merit was eligible to be considered under the schedule caste
category for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. On such
inclusion in the main list, the candidate; in this case the respondent No.1
B
would stand excluded from further consideration for any other post even
if shown as next preference.
12. Thereafter, 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. In that manner the list would be
finalised simultaneously for all the different posts advertised in the C
different departments. From such list, on verification of the testimonials
and the relevant criteria which is the eligibility for the post would be
taken note and the appointment orders will be issued. In that circumstance
when the respondent No.1 had preferred the post of Deputy
Superintendent of Police and had secured the marks required but was D
found ineligible to be appointed in that post cannot thereafter turn around
to seek appointment in the next preferred post when already the persons
eligible are considered for such post and the main list is finalised. In such
circumstance, it is contended that the order passed by the High Court is
not sustainable and the same is liable to be set aside.
E
13. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand
contended that the Rule cannot be taken note in such narrow perspective.
Though the physical requirement is indicated, the Rule 9 provides
regarding the physical fitness. It is contended that the physical criteria
cannot be a bar merely because at the time of medical examination the
benchmark is not reached. It is contended that there is a likelihood that F
the chest measurement could be as per requirement at the time of
application and therefore the preference would be indicated in such
manner. Subsequently if there is a change in the physical measurement,
the same should not be treated as a bar. In that view, it is contended that
the rule 4(3)(c)(2) which has been referred ought not to be interpreted G
narrowly. In that light, the learned counsel for the respondent sought to
justify the order passed by the High Court by contending that the learned
Single Judge having noted the Rule and on taking note that the respondent
No.1 although selected in the main list for the higher post for which
preference was given, he could not be appointed as he had not obtained
H
988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R.

A the benchmark regarding his choice and in that view has to be considered
for the next preferred post. It is in that circumstance, the learned Single
Judge held that the Rule would not be applicable in the present case.
The learned counsel has further relied on the precedents to contend that
the Rule is to be interpreted in a beneficial manner and not in a literal
sense.
B
14. From the facts narrated above and the contentions put-forth
by the learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that though several
posts were advertised and the applications were sought from the eligible
candidates, the preliminary and written examination was common and
the marks as obtained in the said examination was taken into consideration
C to include the candidates based on merit to the post for which the
candidate concerned had given his preference. The advertisement had
indicated the requirement of the Rule that a candidate who had preferred
the higher of the posts which has been advertised would be selected
against such post depending on the merit in the examination. To that
D extent Rule 4(3)(c)(2) of Rules 2015 noted above is clear and specific
that the category-wise recommendation of the candidates will be made
according to the marks obtained by them and the preference sheet
submitted by the candidate. Clause (2) of Sub-Rule (3) further clarifies
that if a candidate is selected in the main list on the basis of the higher
priority of the post given by him in the preference sheet, the candidate
E will not be considered for the remaining post indicated in the preference
sheet.
15. In the instant case, the fact that the respondent No.1 had
given his preference to the post of Deputy District Collector, Deputy
Superintendent of Police and thereafter to the other posts including CMO
F in that order of preference is not in dispute. The further fact that the
respondent No.1 had secured 892 marks out of 1575 marks is the common
case of the parties. Though the respondent No.1 had given first
preference to the post of Deputy District Collector, the marks obtained
by him was not sufficient to be included in the main list based on merit
G for that post. In that light, the second preference given by respondent
No.1 to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police was taken into
consideration. For the said post eight vacancies had been notified as
reserved for the Scheduled Castes candidates. In that view, the said 892
marks obtained by respondent No.1 was sufficient to accept the
preference and include the name of the respondent No.1 in the main list
H for the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police.
MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. 989
MANISH BAKAWALE & ORS. [A. S. BOPANNA, J.]

16. While taking note of this position, what is also to be kept in A
view is the additional eligibility criteria for the said post which had been
clearly depicted in the advertisement calling for applications and was
within the knowledge of respondent No.1. Clause 9 thereof, which has
been extracted and taken note supra in the course of this order indicates
that the minimum height prescribed for the said post was 168 cms. The
B
application submitted by the respondent No.1 apart from indicating that
his second preference is to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police,
he had further signed in acknowledgment of the declaration made in the
application which has also been extracted above in the course of this
order. The same would indicate that a declaration is made to the effect
that all the information given by him are true and correct and that it is C
within his knowledge that in the event of furnishing incorrect and false
information, proceedings can be initiated against him. It is further declared
that the choice for the posts which have been given by him, he has
fulfilled all the prescribed eligibility i.e. age limit, educational qualifications,
experience, physical measurement etc. for those posts. It is also
D
indicated that if he was found ineligible at any stage of selection, his
candidature can be cancelled. The declaration is explicit that the choice
of preference to the post has been made by him since according to him
he has fulfilled the prescribed eligibility criteria, including physical
measurement. If that be the position, the positive declaration made by
the respondent No.1 is that he satisfies the minimum eligibility of 168 E
cms. height required for the post he has preferred which is the higher
post than the next preference. In such event, the authority concerned on
perusal of the application would presuppose that such physical eligibility
criteria is possessed by the candidate concerned and he therefore has
made his choice for the post. In such event if the marks required for the
F
said post is obtained by the candidate, he would be included in the main
selection list. Though, the appointment is a subsequent act which would
take place on verifying the details and the candidate being found to be
eligible, the right of a candidate for selection will stand exhausted once
he is in the main list as per the Rule. While taking note of this aspect,
what is to be kept in view is that Clause (c)(2) of the Rule4 (3) concerned G
employs the phrase “selected in the main list” and “not appointed to the
post”.
17. The precedents relied on by the learned counsel for respondent
No.1 may now be noted. In R.L. Arora vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and
Ors. AIR 1964 SC 1230, the question arose relating to the new clause H
990 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R.

A included in Section 40(1) relating to acquisition of property for the
company and in that context while considering the same it has been
observed by this Court that literal interpretation is not always the only
interpretation of a provision in a statute. In Surjit vs. Mahanagar
Telephone Nigam Limited 2009 16 SCC 722, the issue considered
was with regard to the scope and extent of Rule 443 and 2 (pp) of the
B
Telegraph Rules to consider where the telephone standing in the name
of one spouse could be dis-connected for non-payment of the bill by the
other. In those circumstances, it was observed that in order to interpret
a statute one has to consider the context in which it has been made and
the purpose and object it seeks to achieve. In Union of India and Ors.vs.
C Major General Madan Lal Yadav(Retd.) (1996) 4 SCC 127, the issue
relates to the provisions under the Army Act. The claim put-forth by the
Officer was taken into consideration. The observation contained therein,
relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent No.1 herein to the
effect that a man shall not take advantage of his own wrong to gain the
favourable interpretation of law stated in the said decision, in fact would
D
go against the respondent No.1 himself.
18. None of the referred decisions would be of assistance to
respondent No.1 though on the principle of law laid down in the said
decisions there can be no quarrel whatsoever. The learned counsel for
respondent No.1 has also placed before us the decision of the Gujarat
E High Court in the case relating to recruitment process which was
considered in D.G. Dalal vs. State of Gujarat (2002) 2GLR 1011. No-
doubt in the said case, Rule 9 of Rules 1969 which was considered
therein provided with regard to single application for all posts and indication
of the preference to be provided as in the present case, but the question
F arose therein since the posts had fallen vacant. The issue therein was
with regard to the appointments being made on merit, based on preference
and also a waiting list being maintained against such posts. Since, certain
candidates selected for the higher posts had not reported, vacancy had
arisen and to such vacant posts the candidates in the waiting list were
considered. In that view, a grievance was raised by the candidates who
G were selected for the second preferred posts since they had higher merit
than the persons who were in the waiting list for the higher post which
had not been given to them at the first instance as there was no vacancy
and the next post based on preference was given. It is in that
circumstances where the vacancies had arisen, the Rule had been
H considered to indicate the manner in which the Rule is to be operated. In
MADHYA PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. 991
MANISH BAKAWALE & ORS. [A. S. BOPANNA, J.]

fact, the Rule was under challenge in that case. It has no application to A
the facts herein so as to persuade us to accept the same in the present
matter.
19. 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 B
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 C
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 D
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 E
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 F
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 G
thereafter turn around to seek alteration of the position to the detriment
of others.
20. In that view, the High Court was not justified in its conclusion.
We accordingly, set aside the order dated 03.01.2019 passed in W.P.
H
992 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 9 S.C.R.

A No.20855/2017 and the order dated 08.11.2019 passed in W.A. No.474/
2019. Consequently, the Writ Petition in W.P. No.20855/2017 before the
High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Indore stands dismissed.
21. The above appeal, is accordingly, allowed with no order as to
costs.
B 22. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.

Divya Pandey Appeal allowed.

C

D

E

F

G

H