Candidate Cannot Claim Lower Preference Post After Securing First Choice Under Merit-Cum-Preference System: Madhya Pradesh High Court

"It is a harmonious blend where merit determines when a candidate gets to choose, and preference determines what they are allotted." Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant ruling dated April 2, 2026, held that a candidate cannot abandon their highest preferred post to claim a lower preference post merely because candidates with lower marks were allotted the latter.

A bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai observed that under the merit-cum-preference system, the allotment software rightly grants the most meritorious candidates their absolute top choice, after which their allocation attains finality.

The petitioner, Jitendra Mewade, participated in the Group-4 Combined Recruitment Test 2024 and secured an exceptional 99.92 percentile, resulting in the allotment of his first preference post (Post Code 144). He approached the High Court challenging the select list after discovering that candidates with lower percentiles were allotted Post Code 83, a position he had placed at serial number 36 in his preference list. The petitioner contended that his merit should override his "randomly" filled preference order.

The primary question before the court was whether a highly meritorious candidate could bypass their own locked preferences to claim a post ranked lower on their list, which was allotted to candidates with lower marks. The court was also called upon to determine if the "merit-cum-preference" system violates the statutory rules of merit-based selection.

Merit Works With Preference, Not Against It

The Court analyzed Chapter 3, Part A of the Rule Book, noting that examination results are explicitly based on the "options/preferences" provided by the candidate. Justice Pillai rejected the petitioner's argument that merit was ignored, observing that the petitioner's high merit was precisely why the software evaluated his profile first and granted him his topmost choice. The Court emphasised that the system is a linear matrix where a candidate's high merit ensures their highest available choice is honored.

"It is procedurally incorrect and practically impossible to continue cascading that candidate's name into subsequent merit lists for posts placed significantly lower in their preference order."

Self-Inflicted Grievance And Estoppel

Addressing the petitioner's claim that he filled his preferences "randomly," the High Court firmly held that such negligence cannot dismantle a transparent recruitment process. The bench applied the Doctrine of Estoppel and Acquiescence, observing that the petitioner willingly participated, locked his choices, and reaped the benefit of his first preference. Consequently, he cannot now approbate and reprobate by challenging the very mechanism that honored his own request, rendering his grievance "entirely self-inflicted."

Harmonious Construction Of Recruitment Rules

The petitioner relied on Clauses 10, 11, and 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Junior Service (Joint Qualifying) Examination Rules, 2013 to argue that merit is the sole criterion. The Court dismissed this contention, ruling that general rules must be harmoniously construed with specific operational mandates, such as Rule 3.1 of the advertisement's Rule Book. The bench noted that a 2017 standing notice merely illustrates the operational mechanics of the long-standing merit-cum-preference rule without contradicting statutory provisions.

Administrative Chaos And Vested Rights

Citing the Supreme Court's precedent in M.P. Public Service Commission v. Manish Bakawale, the High Court highlighted the severe administrative ramifications of allowing candidates to alter preferences post-result. The Court took judicial notice that the recruitment involved 57 departments, 117 post codes, and nearly 1,000 posts. Allowing a candidate to discard their first preference after results are declared would trigger a "disastrous domino effect," disrupting the entire state-wide allocation matrix and unlawfully infringing upon the vested rights of rightfully selected candidates.

Caution Issued To Examining Bodies

Though the Court upheld the recruitment process, it issued a word of caution to the Employees Selection Board regarding future advertisements. To curtail frivolous litigation, the Court directed examining bodies to explicitly incorporate the operational mechanics and detailed explanations of the merit-cum-preference allotment software directly within the main body of the Rule Book, ensuring absolute transparency.

Concluding that the Respondent Board acted strictly within its statutory mandate by adequately rewarding the petitioner's merit with his topmost preference, the Court found no illegality or arbitrariness in the selection process. Ex-consequenti, the High Court found the writ petition to be wholly devoid of substance and dismissed the same.

Date of Decision: 02 April 2026