MACT | A Minor Cannot Be Treated as a Non-Earner: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consensual Love Affair Not Cheating Under IPC Section 417: Madras High Court Acquits Man Despite Paternity Confirmation Review Jurisdiction is an Ant-Hole in a Pigeon-Hol: Madras High Court Dismisses Review Plea Against Order Upholding Arbitral Award on Liquidated Damages Bank Can Freeze Guarantor’s Salary Account to Recover Loan Dues: Kerala High Court Clarifies CPC Exemption Does Not Apply to Banker’s Right Revenue Entry Calling Property ‘Ancestral’ Does Not Create Title: Gujarat High Court Upholds Registered Will in Second Appeal Licensee Cannot Resist Resumption Of Railway Land: Gauhati High Court Upholds Eviction For Amrit Bharat Station Scheme Mere Non-Payment of Business Dues Is Not Cheating: Calcutta High Court Protects Traders from Criminal Prosecution in Purely Civil Dispute Prosecution’s Failure to Prove Age of Prosecutrix Beyond Reasonable Doubt Fatal to POCSO Conviction: Rajasthan High Court No Title, No Right, No Equity: Bombay High Court Demolishes Claim Over Footpath Stall, Imposes ₹5 Lakh Costs for Abuse of Process Section 155(2) Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Complainant From Seeking Magistrate’s Permission: Allahabad High Court Clarifies Law on Non-Cognizable Investigations Un-Retracted Section 108 Statement Is Binding: Delhi High Court Declines to Reopen ₹3.5 Crore Cigarette Smuggling Valuation Section 34 Is Not an Appeal in Disguise: Delhi High Court Upholds 484-Day Extension in IRCON–Afcons Tunnel Arbitration Section 432(2) Cannot Be Rendered Fatuous: Calcutta High Court Reasserts Balance Between Judicial Opinion and Executive Discretion in Remission Matters Termination of Mandate Is Not Termination of Arbitration: Bombay High Court Revives Reference and Appoints Substitute Arbitrator CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints

Adjustment and Segregation of Meritorious Reservation Category Candidates Only at the Time of Final Selection: Supreme Court Validates Recruitment Process Amendments

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


The Supreme Court of India, in its latest judgment, has upheld the amendments to the Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, validating the application of amended rules to an ongoing recruitment process which had stirred extensive litigation. The bench led by Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar delivered a comprehensive analysis of the implications of these amendments on the selection process.

The central legal query was whether the amendments to the recruitment rules and their application to an existing selection process were valid under the constitutional and administrative framework, particularly in how they impacted both reserved and unreserved category candidates.

This legal saga began with an amendment to Rule 4 of the Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015, introduced in February 2020, and its subsequent retraction in December 2021. The amendments were applied to the recruitment process initiated for 571 state service posts, leading to multiple legal challenges from affected candidates across various reservation categories

Application of Amended Rules: The court examined the application of the amended Rule 4 to the recruitment process that was already underway. The judgment pointed out that the initial amendment led to a litigation cascade due to its impact on the preliminary and main examination results for candidates across different categories.

Judicial Review and Administrative Decisions: Emphasizing the principles of judicial restraint in administrative decisions, the court supported the MPPSC’s approach in managing examination processes. The normalization process was specifically highlighted as a fair method to merge results from different examination stages, thus ensuring equal treatment of candidates.

Constitutional Interpretation of Reservations: The Court reiterated the constitutional doctrine that meritorious candidates from reserved categories, if qualified in open competition, should not be counted against reserved seats, thus preserving the meritocracy while upholding reservation principles.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals challenging the MPPSC’s decision on the recruitment process, affirming both the legality of the amendments to the recruitment rules and the procedural integrity of their application. The normalization of results and the integration of various candidates’ scores were deemed appropriate and just.

 

Date of Decision: May 1, 2024

 

Deependra Yadav and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others,

Latest Legal News