REPORTABLE  

   IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

   CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

   CIVIL APPEAL NO.  7721 OF 2021

   (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.5792 of 2020)

Madhya Pradesh Public Service 

Commission                                        .…Appellant(s)

Versus

Manish Bakawale & Ors.           ….  Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

A.S. Bopanna,J.

      1.The   appellant­Madhya   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

1

Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   has   dismissed   the

intra­court 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 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) Grade­Kh, 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 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

2

eligibility   criteria.   The   last   date   for   submitting   the

application   was   shown   as   14.04.2016   and   the

preliminary 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   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  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

3

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 No.1 was not sufficient in the order of

merit   to   be   selected   for   the   post   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   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 the High Court since as per the appointment

4

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 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. 

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   consideration  made  by  the   learned

5

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 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 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 Rules. It

6

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.

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 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   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: ­

7

Physical Measurement:

The physical measurement prescribed for

the   posts   of   Deputy   Superintendent   of

Police, Assistant Jail Superintendent and

Deputy Transport Inspector are as under:

9. In   that   background   reference   is   made   to   the

application 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 the candidate in the

application, which reads as hereunder: ­

“DECLARATION

8

No.Name of  Post GenderHeight

(in c.m.)

Chest Siege

Without 

Inflating 

(in C.M.)

With

Inflated 

(in C.M.)

1.State Police 

Service 

(Dy. Supdt. Of 

Police

Male 168 84 89

* 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 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. 

* 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 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,   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   to   eligibility

9

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: ­

“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   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   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   of

submitting   erroneous   information   the

candidate/eligibility   of   such

candidate/applicant   prior   to   selection   or

thereafter at any stage can be cancelled for

10

which   the   applicant   shall   be   solely

responsible for the same. 

 On   furnishing/submitting   erroneous

information by the 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   the   stipulations   given   in   the

advertisement,   corrigendum’s   and   hereby

undertake to abide by them. 

Sd/­ Illegible

Manish Bakawale

02.06.2017”

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 for the said

post. In that background, the appellant while taking note

of   the   preference   and   the   marks   obtained   in   the

11

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 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

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

12

marks required but was 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. 

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   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

13

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 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 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. 

14.  From the facts narrated above and the contentions

put­forth by the learned counsel for the parties, it is

evident that though several posts were advertised and the

14

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 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 noted above is clear and specific that

the category­wise 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 Sub­Rule (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 will not be considered for the remaining

post indicated in the preference sheet. 

15

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 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 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 for the post

of Deputy Superintendent of Police. 

16

16. While taking note of this position, what is also to

be kept in 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 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 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

17

prescribed   eligibility   i.e.   age   limit,   educational

qualifications,   experience,  physical   measurement  etc.

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 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   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

18

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   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 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

19

Rule 443 and 2 (pp) of the Telegraph Rules to consider

where the telephone standing in the name of one spouse

could be dis­connected for non­payment 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. Major General Madan Lal Yadav  (Retd.)  (1996) 4

SCC 127, the issue relates to the provisions under the

Army Act. The claim put­forth 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 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

20

quarrel whatsoever. The learned counsel for respondent

No.1 has also placed before us the decision of the Gujarat

High Court in the case relating to recruitment process

which   was   considered   in  D.G.   Dalal   vs.   State   of

Gujarat (2002) 2GLR 1011. No­doubt 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 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   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

21

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 considered

to   indicate   the   manner   in   which   the   Rule   is   to   be

operated. In fact, the Rule was under challenge in that

case. It has no application to 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 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

22

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

23

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. 

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. 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. 

24

22. Pending application, if any, shall stand disposed of.

……………..………..………….…………….J.

(DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD )

      ………………………...……………………….J.

                              (A.S. BOPANNA)

New Delhi,

December 17, 2021

25