'Would Trigger Domino Effect': MP High Court Rejects Plea For Alteration Of Candidate's Preference In Govt Exam After Allotment Of Post
The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Thursday (April 2) dismissed a candidate's plea seeking alteration of his preference for post in the 2024 Combined Recruitment Test, holding that allowing a one candidate to alter their preference from 1st to 36th post would trigger a domino effect disrupting the state-wide allocation matrix.
This, the court said would also infringe the vested rights of third parties.
The bench of Justice Jai Kumar Pillai highlighted;
"If this Court were to permit a single candidate to arbitrarily discard their 1st preference and lay claim to their 36th preference after the final results have been declared, it would trigger a disastrous domino effect. It would severely disrupt the entire state-wide allocation matrix and unlawfully infringe upon the vested rights of third parties, such as Respondent Nos.4 & 5, who have been rightfully allotted those seats strictly according to the published Rules".
A writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned select list of November 24, 2025, issued by the Employee Selection Board (respondent no. 3). The petitioner sought a writ of Certiorari to qaus the impugned select list to the extent that it recommend the names of private individuals (respondents no 4 and 5) for the post of Assistant Grade III in the Employee Selection Board.
The petitioner further sought the writ of Mandamus directing respondents to consider his case for appointment to the said post based on his positive merit in Group 4 Assistant grade 3 in the Combined Recruitment Test, 2024, regardless of the preference order submitted by him.
Per the case, the petitioner filed his online application form for Class III group 4 Post and submitted his order of preference. He opted Assistant Grade-IIIcum Steno Typist-cum-Computer Operator (code 144) as his first preference, whereas the post (code no 83) he is seeking in the petition was no 36 in his preference list.
The petitioner secured 99.927273 percentile marks and was allotted his first preference i.e. Assistant Grade-IIIcum Steno Typist-cum-Computer Operator. The petitioner, thus, approached the High Court claiming that despite securing more marks, his name was not recommended for post no 83.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that he filed the preference order randomly and merely because he opted for the post code 83 at serial no 36, he cannot be deprived of his appointment.
The bench noted that judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution can only apply in cases where the selection process has been vitiated by patent illegality, arbitrariness or gross departure from statutory rules.
The bench further examined the rules of the advertisement, noting that it clearly imposes a mandatory duty on the candidate to enter preferences for all eligible posts, explicitly warning that they would only be considered for the post filed in the application form, regardless of the marks obtained.
Additionally, the bench highlighted;
"The fundamental objective of the "Merit-cum-Preference" methodology is to empower the meritorious candidate to secure the specific post they deem best for themselves. It is a harmonious blend where merit determines when a candidate gets to choose, and preference determines what they are allotted".
Therefore, the petitioner's argument that merit was ignored was rejected by the bench, noting that the petitioner was granted his topmost choice.
The bench further emphasized that once a candidate achieves high merits and is successfully allotted their topmost choice, the allotment process for that particular candidate attains finality. Therefore, the bench held that it was procedurally incorrect and practically impossible to continue cascading that candidate's name into the subsequent merit list for a post placed significantly lower in their preference order.
The bench held that the petitioner's assertion of filing the form randomly reflects "sheer negligence" on his part and cannot be used as a weapon to dismantle a transparent recruitment process.
The court further held, "A candidate is expected to act with ordinary prudence while executing a statutory application form. The petitioner willingly participated in the selection process, affirmatively locked in Post Code 144 as preference #1, and consciously relegated Post Code 83 to preference #36. Having consented to the rules of the game and having reaped the benefit of securing his absolute top choice, the petitioner cannot now approbate and reprobate by challenging the very mechanism that honored his own request. The grievance raised is entirely self-inflicted".
Additionally, the bench explained that if a single candidate is permitted to alter their preference from 1st to 36th, it would trigger a domino effect as it would disrupt the state-wide allocation matrix and would infringe the vested rights of third parties.
Therefore, the petitioner was dismissed.
Case Title: Jitendra Mewade v State of Madhya Pradesh [W.P. No.48259/2025]
For Petitioner: Advocate LC Patne
For State: Advocate Aditya Singh
For Employee Selection Board: Advocate Manu Maheshwari