Survendra vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.

Per: Justice B.P. Sharma These appeals have been preferred under Section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyayapeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, questioning the legality and validity of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions. Since all the appeals originate from the same recruitment process and involve common questions of fact and law, they were heard analogously and are being decided by this common judgment.

The Madhya Pradesh Employees Selection Board issued an advertisement inviting online applications for recruitment to 13,089 posts of Primary Teachers, including 3,200 posts meant for candidates possessing Rehabilitation Council of India recognised Special D.El.Ed. qualification. Clause 7.7 of the Rule Book provided that such candidates would be entitled to 5% bonus marks upon declaring the requisite qualification having RCI Diploma Certificate in the online application. The Rule Book also required every candidate to verify the correctness of the information and provided a correction window for rectification of inadvertent mistakes.

After declaration of the results, it was found that several candidates, despite not possessing the requisite RCI Diploma qualification, had selected "YES" under Clause 7.7 and were consequently awarded 5% bonus marks. This led to filing of several writ petitions. While one set of petitioners sought verification of the RCI qualification and exclusion of ineligible candidates from the select list, another set admitted that they had mistakenly selected the wrong option and sought deletion of the wrongly awarded bonus marks with a prayer that their candidature be considered on the basis of the marks actually secured by them. The learned Single Judge, while deciding W.P. No.12970 of 2026 and connected matters, directed verification of the RCI recognised qualification claimed by the candidates and revision of the merit list by excluding those who did not possess the requisite qualification. The learned Single Judge also noticed that pursuant to the decision in Deepak Parmar v. State of Madhya Pradesh : W.P. No.42759/2025 , a one-time correction opportunity had already been provided and held that candidates who failed to avail the said benefit could not seek repeated indulgence after completion of the recruitment process. Aggrieved thereby, the present batch of writ appeals has been preferred.

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that none of the appellants possessed recognised Special D.El.Ed. qualification or had uploaded any such certificate. It was contended that they had participated only as general candidates and the selection of the option "YES" under Clause 7.7 was purely inadvertent, owing to ambiguity in the online application form, wherein only the abbreviation "RCI" was mentioned without adequate explanation. It was further submitted that the appellants do not seek retention of the 5% bonus marks but only seek deletion of the same and consideration of their candidature on the basis of the actual marks secured by them. According to the appellants, procedural lapses should not defeat substantive justice, particularly when no undue advantage was intentionally claimed and no prejudice would be caused to other candidates. It was also urged that certain appellants belong to the physically disabled category and, therefore, their bona fide mistake deserved sympathetic consideration.

In support of their submissions, learned counsel relied upon Vashist Narayan Kumar vs. State of Bihar and Others, 2024 INSC 2, Deepak Parmar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh a n d Others, W.P. No.42759 of 2025 , and Sainika Sehlot vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, W.P. No.13645 of 2026 , while contending that the decision of Sushil Tripathi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, W.P. No.11655 of 2026, is distinguishable on facts.

Per contra, learned Government Advocate, learned counsel for the Madhya Pradesh Employees Selection Board and the private respondents supported the impugned judgment by submitting that the recruitment was governed strictly by the Rule Book, which required every candidate to verify the declarations made in the online application and also provided a correction window. It was argued that, apart from the statutory correction period, a second-time additional opportunity was also extended pursuant to the decision in Deepak Parmar (supra), but the appellants failed to avail the same. Having allowed the recruitment process to attain finality, they cannot now seek reopening of the selection.

It was further contended that permitting post-result corrections would disturb the sanctity of the recruitment process, prejudice the rights of meritorious candidates and unsettle the final merit list. The respondents also submitted that the appellants cannot invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court to avoid the consequences of declarations voluntarily made by them and that some appellants had not approached the Court with complete disclosure of material facts.

In support of their submissions, learned counsel relied upon Jyoti Yadav and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, Writ Petition (Civil) No.322 of 2021, Sonam Agraiya and Others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, W.P. No.12970 of 2026, Sushil Tripathi vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, W.P. No.11655 of 2026, and Deepak Parmar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others, W.P. No.42759 of 2025 , and submitted that the controversy stands concluded by the aforesaid decisions and the learned Single Judge has committed no error warranting interference.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

The recruitment in question was governed entirely by the Rule Book issued by the Madhya Pradesh Employees Selection Board. Clause 7.7 specifically provided that only those candidates possessing Rehabilitation Council of India recognised Special D.El.Ed. qualification would be entitled to 5% bonus marks. The Rule Book further cast an obligation upon every candidate to verify the correctness of the information furnished before final submission of the online application and simultaneously provided a correction window enabling rectification of any inadvertent mistake. Therefore, every candidate was fully aware of the consequences flowing from the declarations made in the online application.

The principal contention advanced by the appellants is that the declaration made under Clause 7.7 was an inadvertent mistake and that they merely seek deletion of the bonus marks wrongly awarded to them without claiming any undue advantage. The submission, however, cannot be accepted because the declarations made by the candidates adversely affected the recruitment process and attained finality upon expiry of the correction period. Admittedly, the appellants did not rectify their applications during the prescribed correction period. More importantly, the record clearly demonstrates that even after the decision rendered in Deepak Parmar (supra), the second time correction window was extended from 26.12.2025 to 10.01.2026 for all candidates. Despite such opportunity, the appellants failed to avail the benefit. Having allowed the recruitment process to attain finality, they cannot now seek reopening of the selection because of their own misrepresentation.

The learned Single Judge has rightly held that permitting corrections after declaration of the result would seriously affect the sanctity and certainty of a public recruitment process. The Rule Book itself contemplated a correction mechanism and repeated opportunities had already been extended to the candidates firstly from 25.08.2025 to 26.08.2025, then from 26.12.2025 to 10.01.2026 (as per directions of WP No. 42759 of 2025), then third special correction window from 04.02.2026 to 11.02.2026 (as per the directions of DPI). Reopening the process at this stage would inevitably require revision of the merit list, alteration of the inter se merit of thousands of candidates and would prejudice the rights of candidates who had correctly furnished their particulars and whose selection was finalized. Public recruitment cannot be permitted to remain uncertain at the instance of candidates seeking modification of declarations endlessly, while the appellants had misconceived the material information.

We also find no merit in the contention that since the appellants are surrendering the benefit of bonus marks, no prejudice would be caused. Acceptance of such submission would necessarily disturb the final merit list and unsettle the completed recruitment. The judgments relied upon by the appellants also do not advance their case. Vashist Narayan Kumar (supra) arose in an entirely different facts concerning an inadvertent discrepancy in the date of birth and is clearly distinguishable. Likewise, Jyoti Yadav (supra), was rendered in the context of a different recruitment governed by a distinct statutory framework and, therefore, has no application to the present controversy. The judgments relied upon by the appellants are clearly distinguishable and do not assist their case.

It is clear that the appellants have filled the forms by giving false information to get 5% additional marks. In the judgment of the co-ordinate bench of this High Court in “Mahesh Kumar Batham Vs. The Life Insurance Corporation of India and others in Writ Appeal No. 278 of 2025 ” has observed as under:

The material available on record clearly indicates that the appellants knowingly furnished incorrect information in their online applications with a view to obtaining the benefit of 5% bonus marks to which they were otherwise not entitled. Such a declaration cannot be treated as a mere inadvertent or clerical mistake because all the candidates were given opportunities thrice to correct the information. When all these candidates did not correct the factual details, despite given sufficient opportunities then it can be inferred that they wanted to get undue advantage of misrepresentation. Therefore, it was fraud tried to play upon the recruitment process. A candidate seeking public employment is expected to furnish truthful and accurate information, and any false declaration strikes at the very root of the fairness and transparency of the recruitment process.

The Coordinate Bench of this Court, relying upon catena of decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reiterated the settled principle that fraud vitiates all solemn proceedings and that fraud unravels every transaction founded upon it. The said principle squarely applies to the present case. Candidates who obtain a benefit in the recruitment process by making false declarations cannot subsequently seek equitable relief from the Court by describing such conduct as an inadvertent mistake. Any indulgence in such circumstances would not only defeat the sanctity of the recruitment process but would also prejudice the rights of genuine candidates who participated by furnishing correct particulars.

For the foregoing reasons, we are satisfied that the learned Single Judge has committed no error either on facts or in law. Consequently, all the writ appeals, being devoid of merit, are dismissed. No order as to costs.