DEEPENDRA YADAV AND OTHERSversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS

                  [2024] 6 S.C.R. 36 : 2024 INSC 362

                    Deependra Yadav and Others
                                 v.
                State of Madhya Pradesh and Others
                       (Civil Appeal No. 5604 of 2024)
                                 01 May 2024
              [C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar,* JJ.]

                           Issue for Consideration
       (i) Whether a fault can be found in the process of normalization and
       the consequential merger of the marks secured by the candidates
       who appeared in the two main examinations; (ii) Whether the Rule
       4(3)(d)(III) of the Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules,
       2015 patently harmed the interest of the reservation category
       candidates.

                                  Headnotes
       Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015 – The
       Single Judge of the High Court invalidated the decision taken
       by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC)
       on 10.10.2022, proposing to hold a fresh main examination by
       cancelling the earlier one, and directed the MPPSC to hold
       a special main examination, for the new eligible reservation
       category candidates, as per the redrawn preliminary
       examination result – The Single Judge also directed that,
       on the basis of the results of these two main examinations,
       a fresh list of selected candidates should be prepared in
       terms of the Rules, 2015 for the interview, by merging and
       normalizing the two lists, as per the process adopted by the
       MPPSC on previous occasions – By judgment dated 25.01.2023,
       the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal,
       holding that the order passed by the Single Judge was just,
       proper and well-reasoned – Correctness:
       Held: In State of U.P. and Others vs. Atul Kumar Dwivedi and
       others, the Supreme Court concluded that the exercise undertaken
       in adopting the process of normalization was quite consistent with
       the requirements of law – It was also observed that decisions
       made by expert bodies, including the Public Service Commissions,
       should not be lightly interfered with, unless instances of arbitrary
       and malafide exercise of power are made out – In the instant
* Author
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                             37

 Deependra Yadav and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others


     case, two experts, who had guided the MPPSC in undertaking
     the process of normalization, appeared before the Court to explain
     the methodology adopted – The experts satisfied the Court that a
     transparent process was adopted to bring all the candidates onto
     an even platform so as to finalise the list of candidates eligible to
     be interviewed – This was done by applying a formula uniformly to
     the marks secured by all the candidates who appeared in the two
     main examinations, so that their marks would become comparable
     and enable preparation of a unified marks list – No lacuna in the
     process adopted or formula applied – Therefore, the process of
     normalization and the consequential merger of the marks secured
     by the candidates who appeared in the two main examinations
     cannot be found fault with – Thus, the impugned judgment dated
     25.01.2023 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court upheld.
     [Paras 26, 27, 29]
     Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015 –
     Rule 4 – Amendment on 17.02.2020 – Recall of amendment
     on 20.12.2021 – Omission of Rule 4(3)(d)(III):
     Held: The amendment effected on 17.02.2020 brought about a
     sea change in the methodology of Rule 4 – The amended Rule
     4 of the Rules of 2015 provided that adjustment and segregation
     of meritorious reservation category candidates with meritorious
     unreserved category candidates would be only at the time of final
     selection and not at the time of the preliminary/main examination
     – Thereafter, on 20.12.2021, the Rules of 2015 were again
     amended – The position existing prior to the amendment effected
     on 17.02.2020 was restored – Further, the amended Rule 4(3)(d)
     (III) was altogether omitted from the Rules of 2015 – The result
     of such omission and Rule 4(1)(a)(ii), as it presently reads, is
     that meritorious reservation category candidates, who did not
     avail any benefit of relaxation, are to be clubbed with meritorious
     unreserved category candidates at the time of declaring the result
     of the preliminary examination itself – In effect, status quo ante
     was restored – Rule 4(3)(d)(III) of the Rules of 2015 patently
     harmed the interests of the reservation category candidates, as
     even meritorious candidates from such categories, who had not
     availed any reservation benefit/relaxation, were to be treated as
     belonging to those reservation categories and they were not to
     be segregated with meritorious unreserved category candidates
     at the preliminary examination result stage – As a result, they
     continued to occupy the reservation category slots which would
38                                                             [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


      have otherwise gone to deserving reservation category candidates
      lower down in the merit list of that category, had they been included
      with meritorious unreserved category candidates on the strength
      of their marks. [Paras 5, 8, 30]

                                Case Law Cited
             State of U.P. and Others v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi and
             Others [2022] 1 SCR 28 : (2022) 11 SCC 578; Tajvir
             Singh Sodhi and Others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir
             and Others [2023] 3 SCR 714 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC
             344; Saurav Yadav and Others v. State of U.P. and Others
             [2020] 11 SCR 281 : (2021) 4 SCC 542 – referred to.
             Kishor Choudhary v. State of Madhya Pradesh and
             Another (W.P. No.542/2021 of Madhya Pradesh High
             Court); Harshit Jain and Others v. State of Madhya
             Pradesh and Another (W.P.No.23828/2022 of Madhya
             Pradesh High Court) – referred to.

                                  List of Acts
      Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015;
      Constitution of India; Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva (Anusuchit
      Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye
      Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994.

                               List of Keywords
      Rule 4 of Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015;
      Rule 4 of Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015
      amended on 17.02.2020; Rule 4 of Madhya Pradesh State Service
      Examination Rules, 2015 amended on 20.12.2021; Omission of
      Rule 4(3)(d)(III) of Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination
      Rules, 2015; Merging and normalising; Process of normalization;
      Expert bodies.

                              Case Arising From
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5604 of 2024
      From the Judgment and Order dated 25.01.2023 of the High Court of
      M.P. Principal Seat at Jabalpur in WA No. 1706 of 2022
      With
      Special Leave Petition (C) Nos. 23514 and 27620 of 2023
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                          39

 Deependra Yadav and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others


                        Appearances for Parties
     Saurabh Mishra, A.A.G., R.Bala Subramanyam, Gaurav Agarwal,
     Rakesh Khanna, Atma Ram N. S. Nadkarni, Sr. Advs., Jitendra
     Kumar Tripathi, Amit Sharma, Alok Kumar, Ravi Kumar, Shashank
     Gaurav, Rameshwar Singh Thakur, Ms. Samridhi S Jain, Manan
     Daga, Chaitanya Dixit, Aman Varma, Rakesh Mishra, Harsh
     Parashar, Akash Lalwani, Sunny Choudhary, Abhinav Shrivastava,
     Shivang Rawat, Dr. Harsh Pathak, Ms. Shaveta Mahajan, Mohit
     Choubey, S. S. Rebello, Ms. Deepti, Advs. for the appearing parties.
                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
                                Judgment
     Sanjay Kumar, J.
1.   Leave granted only in SLP (C) No. 5817 of 2023.
2.   One lapse on the part of the State is all it took to generate this
     litigation, impacting multitudes of job aspirants in the State of Madhya
     Pradesh. The lapse was the amendment of an existing service rule
     on 17.02.2020 which was recalled thereafter on 20.12.2021, restoring
     the rule to its original position, but in the interregnum that amended
     rule was applied to an ongoing recruitment process. This prompted
     several challenges before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at
     Jabalpur resulting in a spate of orders and directions leading up to
     these cases before us.
3.   The Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC) issued
     an advertisement on 14.11.2019 proposing to select candidates
     for 571 posts in the State services in accordance with the Madhya
     Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015 (for brevity, ‘the
     Rules of 2015’). The Rules of 2015 were framed in exercise of
     power under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of
     India. The Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination-2019
     was scheduled to be held by the MPPSC for filling up these
     posts, by conducting a preliminary examination followed by the
     main examination and interviews. The preliminary examination
     took place on 12.01.2020. The total number of candidates who
     registered for the preliminary examination stood at 3,64,877 but
     only 3,18,130 of them actually appeared for the examination. At that
     stage, on 17.02.2020, Rule 4 of the Rules of 2015 was amended
40                                                            [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


      by the State of Madhya Pradesh. Rule 4, as it stood prior to the
      amendment and to the extent relevant for the purposes of this
      adjudication, read as under:
           ‘Rule 4. Mode of preparation of select list.
           (1)(a)(i) On the basis of marks obtained in Preliminary
           Examination, candidates numbering 15 times the
           vacancies as advertised category wise will be declared
           successful for Main examination subject to the condition
           that candidates have scored minimum passing marks as
           may be specified by the Commission. In addition to this,
           all the other candidates who get marks equal to “Cut
           Off Marks” will also be declared successful for the main
           examination.
           (ii) Firstly, a list of Candidates of unreserved category
           shall be prepared. This list will include the candidates
           selected on the basis of the common merit from Scheduled
           Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes,
           who have not taken any advantage/relaxation given to the
           concerned category.
           (iii) Secondly, separate lists of Scheduled Castes,
           Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes will be
           prepared.
           ……
           (d) A common list of successful candidates shall be
           prepared after the preparation of all four lists, and
           examination result will be declared thereafter. This list will
           be roll number wise.’
4.    It is clear from a bare reading of the above Rule 4 that the result of the
      preliminary examination was to be declared by clubbing meritorious
      reservation category candidates, who had not availed any reservation
      benefit, with the meritorious unreserved category candidates and not
      with their respective reservation category candidates. While so, the
      amendment effected on 17.02.2020 brought about a sea change in
      this methodology. To the extent relevant, the amended Rule 4 of the
      Rules of 2015 read thus:
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                           41

 Deependra Yadav and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others


           ‘4. Mode of preparation of select list: -
           (1)(a)(I) On the basis of marks obtained in Preliminary
           Examination, - category wise candidates numbering 15
           times of the vacancies as advertised will be declared
           successful for Main examination subject to the condition that
           candidates have scored minimum passing marks as may
           be specified by the Commission. In addition to this, all the
           other candidates who get marks equal to “Cut Off Marks”
           will also be declared successful for the main examination.
           (II) Separate Lists of Candidates applied in Unreserved,
           Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward
           Classes and Economically Weaker Section shall be
           prepared. Reservation shall be given to Women and
           ExServicemen in all categories as per rules and instructions
           issued in this regard from time to time.
           ……
           (d) A common list of successful candidates shall be
           prepared after the preparation of all five lists, and there
           after examination result will be declared. This list will be
           roll number wise.
           ……
           (3)(d)(I) Results of Preliminary/Main Examination, the
           candidates shall be declared in the category mentioned
           as their category in their online application form.
           (II) Candidates of reserved category (Scheduled caste/
           Scheduled Tribe/Other Backwards Classes/Economically
           Weaker Section) who get selected like general category
           candidates without any relaxation shall not be adjusted
           against the posts reserved for those reserved categories.
           They shall be adjusted against vacancies of unreserved
           category.
           (III) But above adjustment will only be at the time of final
           selection, not at the time of preliminary/main examination.’
5.   In effect, the amended Rule 4 of the Rules of 2015 provided that
     adjustment and segregation of meritorious reservation category
42                                                          [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


      candidates with meritorious unreserved category candidates would
      be only at the time of final selection and not at the time of the
      preliminary/main examination.
6.    Surprisingly, the amended Rule 4 was applied to the ongoing
      recruitment process relating to the notified 571 vacant posts. The
      result of the preliminary examination conducted on 12.01.2020 was
      declared on 21.12.2020, applying the amended Rule 4. Thus, there
      was no segregation of meritorious reservation category candidates
      with those from the unreserved category and they were shown in their
      respective reservation categories only. The number of candidates
      who cleared the preliminary examination on this basis were 10,767.
7.    While so, the vires of amended Rule 4(3)(d)(III) of the Rules of
      2015 was challenged by some of the candidates in a batch of writ
      petitions before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur. By
      interim order dated 22.01.2021 passed in those cases, the High
      Court directed that the recruitment process initiated pursuant to
      the preliminary examination result dated 21.12.2020 shall remain
      subject to the outcome of the writ petitions. Pursuant thereto, the
      MPPSC conducted the main examination of the Madhya Pradesh
      State Service Examination-2019 from 21.03.2021 to 26.03.2021.
      While so, on 20.12.2021, the Rules of 2015 were again amended
      by the State of Madhya Pradesh. Thereby, the position existing prior
      to the amendment effected on 17.02.2020 was restored. The newly
      amended Rule 4 of the Rules of 2015 read thus:
           4(1)(a)(i) On the basis of marks obtained in the preliminary
           examination category wise candidates 20 times the number
           of advertised vacancies shall be declared successful for
           the main examination subject to the condition that the
           candidates have secured such minimum passing marks
           as may be specified by the Commission. In addition, all
           other candidates who have obtained marks equal to the
           ‘cut off marks’ shall also be declared qualified for the main
           examination.
           (ii) First of all, the cut off marks of unreserved category
           shall be determined. After this, those candidates belonging
           to the reserved category (Scheduled Castes, Scheduled
           Tribes, Other Backward Classes and Economically
           Weaker Sections) who have obtained marks more than
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                           43

 Deependra Yadav and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others


           or equal to the prescribed “cut off” of the unreserved
           category and who have taken the benefit of relaxations
           from time to time, shall be included in the respective
           category by separating them from the list of unreserved
           category.
           (iii) In the second phase, category-wise cut off marks of
           the reserved candidates shall be determined by preparing
           category-wise separate lists of candidates belonging to
           Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward
           Classes and Economically Weaker Sections.
           …..
           (c) After preparation of all the five lists, a common list of
           eligible candidates shall be prepared and thereafter the
           result shall be declared roll number wise.
8.   Further, the amended Rule 4(3)(d)(III) was altogether omitted from
     the Rules of 2015. The result of such omission and Rule 4(1)(a)
     (ii), as it presently reads, is that meritorious reservation category
     candidates, who did not avail any benefit of relaxation, are to be
     clubbed with meritorious unreserved category candidates at the time
     of declaring the result of the preliminary examination itself. In effect,
     status quo ante was restored.
9.   Notwithstanding this amendment, the result of the main examination
     held between 21.03.2021 and 26.03.2021 was declared by
     the MPPSC on 31.12.2021 and the number of candidates who
     provisionally qualified for interviews were 1918. However, by judgment
     dated 07.04.2022, a Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya
     Pradesh at Jabalpur partly allowed the pending writ petitions, viz.,
     W.P. No. 542 of 2021 and batch, titled ‘Kishor Choudhary vs. State
     of Madhya Pradesh and another’. Challenge in this batch of cases
     was not only to the validity of amended Rule 4(3)(d)(III) of the Rules
     of 2015 but also to Section 4(4) of the Madhya Pradesh Lok Seva
     (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon aur Anya Pichhade Vargon
     Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994 (for brevity, ‘the Adhiniyam’).
     Section 4(4) of the Adhiniyam reads as follows: -
           ‘4(4). If a person belonging to any of the categories
           mentioned in sub-section (2) gets selected on the basis
           of merit in an open competition with general candidates,
44                                                           [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


           he shall not be adjusted against the vacancies reserved
           for such category under sub-section (2).’
      The Division Bench upheld the validity of Section 4(4) of the Adhiniyam
      but declared Rule 4(3)(d)(III) of the Rules of 2015 ultra vires and set
      it aside. The Division Bench directed that, resultantly, the recruitment
      process must be conducted and completed in consonance with the
      unamended Rules of 2015.
10. Thereupon, the MPPSC issued Advertisement dated 29.09.2022
    proposing to reconduct the main examination in compliance with
    the Division Bench judgment. This examination was proposed to
    be conducted in the second week of January, 2023. Further, on
    10.10.2022, the MPPSC declared the revised result of the preliminary
    examination, in tune with the unamended Rule 4 of the Rules of
    2015. In consequence, 13,080 candidates were declared qualified
    for the main examination, instead of the 10,767 candidates declared
    eligible earlier as per amended Rule 4(3)(d)(III).
11. While so, some candidates filed W.P. No. 23828 of 2022 before the
    High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur assailing the decision of
    the MPPSC to cancel the result of the main examination held earlier
    on the ground that they would be required to reappear for the said
    examination despite clearing it in the first instance. The petitioners in
    SLP (C) No. 5817 of 2023, from which this appeal arises, intervened
    in the said writ petition and they were also heard. This writ petition
    was filed on 13.10.2022.
12. At that stage, Review Petition Nos. 1112 and 1175 of 2022 were
    filed seeking clarification of the judgment dated 07.04.2022 in
    Kishor Choudhary (supra). However, by order dated 18.11.2022,
    the Division Bench disposed of the review petitions leaving it open
    to the writ Court to consider and interpret its earlier judgment dated
    07.04.2022. This order was passed as the Division Bench was
    informed of the fact that a fresh writ petition, viz., W.P. No. 23828
    of 2022, was pending consideration.
13. A learned Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh allowed
    W.P. No. 23828 of 2022 and batch, titled ‘Harshit Jain and others
    vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and another’ on 29.11.2022.
    Therein, the learned Judge noted that four categories of candidates
    emerged:
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                          45

 Deependra Yadav and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others


     (i)    the newly qualified reservation category candidates for the
            main examination (2,721, in number), as per the result dated
            10.10.2022;
     (ii)   1,918 select list candidates, who had passed the main
            examination held from 21.03.2021 to 26.03.2021 and qualified
            for the interview;
     (iii) candidates out of these 1,918 candidates, who would be ousted
           from that select list of 1,918 candidates, if the special main
           examination is conducted and the results are normalized; and
     (iv) 8,894 candidates, out of the 10,767 candidates, who had
          appeared for the main examination earlier but could not pass it.
14. The learned Judge observed that if the result of the main examination
    was cancelled, a premium would be given to the candidates from
    the fourth category by reviving their candidature, though they had
    failed to qualify in the first instance, and a right would be taken away
    from candidates who had already cleared the main examination and
    qualified for the interview. The learned Judge opined that this would
    cause serious prejudice and grave injustice to candidates who were
    declared eligible and had qualified in the short-listing process and that
    holding the entire main examination afresh would not only result in
    incurring huge costs but would also cause grave injustice to a large
    number of candidates, who had already cleared the main examination
    and were short-listed for the interview, without any fault on their part.
    Holding so, the learned Judge invalidated the decision taken by the
    MPPSC on 10.10.2022, proposing to hold a fresh main examination by
    cancelling the earlier one, and directed the MPPSC to hold a special
    main examination, as was done by it earlier on several occasions, for
    the new eligible reservation category candidates, as per the redrawn
    preliminary examination result. The learned Judge directed that, on
    the basis of the results of these two main examinations, a fresh list
    of selected candidates should be prepared in terms of the Rules of
    2015 for the interview, by merging and normalizing the two lists, as
    per the process adopted by the MPPSC on previous occasions. This
    exercise was directed to be completed within six months.
15. Aggrieved by this judgment, three of the petitioners in SLP (C) No.
    5817 of 2023 preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of the
    High Court. By judgment dated 25.01.2023 passed in Writ Appeal
46                                                        [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


      No. 1706 of 2022, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal, holding
      that the order passed by the learned Judge was just, proper and
      well-reasoned and did not call for any interference.
16. The judgment dated 25.01.2023 of the Division Bench was assailed
    before this Court in SLP (C) No. 5817 of 2023, from which the present
    appeal arises. By order dated 10.04.2023, this Court rejected the
    prayer therein for interim relief but directed that, in the interest of
    justice, any proceedings/processes pursuant to the advertisement
    in question shall remain subject to the final orders to be passed in
    this case.
17. Prior thereto, by Advertisement dated 10.01.2023, the MPPSC notified
    that the main examination for the new candidates as per the revised
    preliminary examination result would be held from 15.04.2023 to
    20.04.2023 in compliance with the judgment dated 29.11.2022 in
    W.P. No. 23828 of 2022. Thereafter, by order dated 13.01.2023, the
    MPPSC declared ineligible for interview some of the candidates who
    had cleared the main examination in the first instance. This was on
    the basis of the revised preliminary examination result, whereby 398
    candidates out of the 1918 candidates who had cleared the earlier
    main examination stood ousted at the preliminary examination stage.
18. Challenging the order dated 13.01.2023, some of the affected
    candidates approached the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at
    Jabalpur, vide Writ Petition No. 4783 of 2023 and batch. The said
    batch of cases, tiled ‘Vaishali Wadhwani and others vs. The State
    of Madhya Pradesh and another’, was disposed of by a learned
    Judge of the High Court by judgment dated 23.08.2023. The learned
    Judge partly allowed those cases, but directed the MPPSC to merge
    and normalize the result of the first main examination and the result
    of the special main examination, held on the strength of the revised
    preliminary examination result, as directed in Harshit Jain (supra).
    Thereafter, the same learned Judge disposed of Writ Petition No.
    25087 of 2023, titled ‘Priyanka Pandey vs. The State of Madhya
    Pradesh and another’, by judgment dated 07.10.2023, holding
    that his judgment in Vaishali Wadhwani (supra) was a judgment
    in rem and would apply to all the candidates who passed the main
    examination in the first instance and directed the MPPSC not to
    discriminate between candidates who approached the Court and
    those who did not.
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                       47

 Deependra Yadav and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others


19. The special main examination for the reservation category candidates
    who were declared eligible, in terms of the revised preliminary
    examination result, was conducted from 15.04.2023 to 20.04.2023.
    Their results were declared on 18.05.2023, after normalizing and
    merging the results of both the main examinations. The process of
    normalization of the results of the two main examinations was effected
    by the MPPSC in consultation with and under the guidance and
    advice of two experts. Normalization was undertaken in the context
    of the marks obtained by candidates in the two main examinations by
    applying a formula, so as to bring them all on an even keel. Thereby,
    1983 candidates stood qualified for the interview. Out of the 1983
    candidates declared qualified for the interview, 1,520 candidates
    figured in the list of 1918 candidates declared eligible earlier, on
    the strength of the first main examination, and the remaining 463
    candidates emerged successful either in the special main examination
    or in the normalization process. Totally, 398 candidates out of the
    1918 candidates, who were declared eligible for the interview earlier,
    stood ousted and were no longer eligible.
20. The MPPSC then issued Notification dated 23.06.2023, calling upon
    the 1983 selected candidates to appear for the interviews. Some of
    the ousted 398 candidates filed writ petitions before the High Court
    and were granted interim relief, by permitting them also to appear
    for the interviews. Interviews were conducted from 09.08.2023 to
    19.10.2023.
21. The MPPSC filed Writ Appeal No. 2017 of 2023, aggrieved by
    the judgment in Vaishali Wadhwani (supra), on the ground that
    it proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the normalization
    process was applied to the marks secured in the preliminary
    examination and not in the two main examinations held thereafter. By
    interim order dated 19.12.2023, a Division Bench of the High Court
    stayed the order dated 23.08.2023 passed in Vaishali Wadhwani
    (supra). Aggrieved thereby, Vaishali Wadhwani and others filed
    miscellaneous applications, seeking vacating of the stay granted
    by the Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 2017 of 2023. These
    applications were dismissed on 12.02.2024.
22. We are informed that the State of Madhya Pradesh proceeded
    on the strength of the results declared after the normalization and
    also issued appointment orders to the selected candidates, thereby
48                                                         [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


      enabling them to join service. Insofar as the seven petitioners in SLP
      (C) No. 5817 of 2023 are concerned, the MPPSC stated that only
      three of them had cleared the preliminary examination, as per the
      pre-revised result dated 21.12.2020, and were eligible to write the
      main examination. However, one of them did not appear for the main
      examination while the other two did and failed. Thereafter, all seven
      of them were declared eligible, in terms of the revised preliminary
      examination result dated 10.10.2022, but they failed the special main
      examination and in the process of normalization held thereafter, as
      per the results declared on 18.05.2023.
23. Be it noted that Vaishali Wadhwani and others, the petitioners in
    Writ Petition No. 4783 of 2023 and batch, were successful before
    the High Court to some extent inasmuch as their writ petitions were
    partly allowed by the judgment dated 23.08.2023, but directing the
    MPPSC to merge and normalize the two lists, i.e., the result of the
    first main examination and the result of the special main examination.
    They, however, chose to file SLP (C) No. 23514 of 2023 before
    this Court against the said judgment dated 23.08.2023. As already
    noted hereinabove, Writ Appeal No. 2017 of 2023 was filed against
    the very same judgment by the MPPSC before a Division Bench
    of the High Court and the said appeal is pending consideration.
    More importantly, the petitions filed therein by Vaishali Wadhwani
    and others, seeking the vacating of the stay of the judgment dated
    23.08.2023, were dismissed and that order was not subjected to
    challenge by them. Having sought vacating of the stay order passed
    in relation to the judgment dated 23.08.2023, in effect, seeking
    implementation thereof, it is surprising that Vaishali Wadhwani and
    the others sought to challenge the very same judgment before this
    Court. In any event, even if they have any grievance with the said
    judgment, it is not open to them to bypass the remedy of appeal
    available to them before the High Court itself. We are, therefore, not
    inclined to entertain their special leave petition.
24. Similarly, Mamta Mishra, who was also a petitioner in Writ Petition
    No. 4783 of 2023 along with Vaishali Wadhwani, chose to file SLP
    (C) No. 27620 of 2023 assailing the judgment dated 23.08.2023
    passed therein. For reasons alike, as stated in the context of SLP
    (C) No. 23514 of 2023 filed by Vaishali Wadhwani and others, this
    special leave petition also does not merit consideration.
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                         49

    Deependra Yadav and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others


25. I.A. No. 102595 of 2023 was filed by four candidates seeking to come
    on record in SLP (C) No. 5817 of 2023. They claimed to be similarly
    situated to Deependra Yadav, the first petitioner therein. IA No. 132609
    of 2023 was filed by two of the 398 ousted candidates, seeking to
    be impleaded in SLP (C) No. 5817 of 2023. I.A. No. 228055 was
    filed by 182 candidates seeking to come on record in SLP (C) No.
    5817 of 2023, so as to support the petitioners therein. They stated
    that they stood ousted after normalization and merger of the marks
    secured by candidates in the two main examinations. However, as
    grievances of candidates who appeared in the Madhya Pradesh
    State Service Examination-2019 are not personal or individual to
    them alone and we are concerned with resolving the larger issue,
    we do not consider it necessary to implead any of these individual
    candidates who were not parties before the High Court or give them
    a hearing. In any event, all the relevant issues and aspects have
    been comprehensively and conclusively addressed by the learned
    senior counsel/counsel appearing for the parties on record and
    nothing more remains to be added thereto.
26. Further, we had requested the two experts, who had guided the
    MPPSC in undertaking the process of normalization, to appear
    before us so as to explain the methodology adopted. Having heard
    the two experts, namely Dr. Vastashpati Shastri and Mr. Indresh
    Mangal, we are fully satisfied that a transparent process, which was
    completely above board, was adopted to bring all the candidates
    onto an even platform so as to finalize the list of candidates eligible
    to be interviewed. This was done by applying a formula uniformly to
    the marks secured by all the candidates who appeared in the two
    main examinations, so that their marks would become comparable
    and enable preparation of a unified marks list.
27. Significantly, in State of U.P. and others vs. Atul Kumar Dwivedi and
    others1, this Court had occasion to consider application of moderation/
    scaling of marks in a recruitment process and as to when such an
    exercise would be permissible. It was observed that normalization
    of marks means increasing and/or decreasing the marks obtained
    by students in different timing sessions (shifts) to a certain number,
    as observed by the High Court in its judgment, and it was noted


1     [2022] 1 SCR 28 : (2022) 11 SCC 578
50                                                            [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                            Digital Supreme Court Reports


       that such normalization techniques help in comparing corresponding
       normalized values from two or more different data sets in a way
       that it eliminates the effects of the variation in the scale of the data
       sets, i.e., a data set with large values can be easily compared with
       a data set of smaller values and the normalized score/percentile is
       obtained by applying a formula. This Court, accordingly, concluded
       that the exercise undertaken in adopting the process of normalization
       was quite consistent with the requirements of law. This Court further
       observed that decisions made by expert bodies, including the Public
       Service Commissions, should not be lightly interfered with, unless
       instances of arbitrary and malafide exercise of power are made out.
28. On similar lines, in Tajvir Singh Sodhi and others v. State of Jammu
    and Kashmir and others2, this Court observed that interference in
    the selection process for public employment should generally be
    avoided, recognizing the importance of maintaining the autonomy and
    integrity of the selection process. Noting that Courts would recognize
    that the process of selection involves a high degree of expertise and
    discretion and that it would not be appropriate for Courts to substitute
    their judgment for that of a selection committee, it was observed
    that it is not within the domain of the Court, exercising the power
    of judicial review, to enter into the merits of a selection process, a
    task which is the prerogative of and is within the expert domain of a
    selection committee, subject of course to a caveat that if there are
    proven allegations of malfeasance or violations of statutory rules,
    only in such cases of inherent arbitrariness, can the Courts intervene.
29. The detailed explanation by the experts being rather technical, we do
    not propose to burden this judgment with the same, but the learned
    senior counsel/counsel opposing the MPPSC, who also heard the
    experts, did not bring to our notice any lacuna in the process adopted
    or the formula applied, whereby injustice was done to any candidate
    or any arbitrariness crept in. We, therefore, hold that the process of
    normalization and the consequential merger of the marks secured by
    the candidates who appeared in the two main examinations cannot
    be found fault with.
30. We may also note that Rule 4(3)(d)(III) of the Rules of 2015 patently
    harmed the interests of the reservation category candidates, as even


2     [2023] 3 SCR 714 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 344
[2024] 6 S.C.R.                                                          51

    Deependra Yadav and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Others


       meritorious candidates from such categories, who had not availed
       any reservation benefit/relaxation, were to be treated as belonging
       to those reservation categories and they were not to be segregated
       with meritorious unreserved category candidates at the preliminary
       examination result stage. As a result, they continued to occupy the
       reservation category slots which would have otherwise gone to
       deserving reservation category candidates lower down in the merit list
       of that category, had they been included with meritorious unreserved
       category candidates on the strength of their marks.
31. In Saurav Yadav and others v. State of U.P. and others3, a 3-Judge
    Bench of this Court affirmed the principle that candidates belonging
    to any of the vertical reservation categories would be entitled to be
    selected in the ‘open category’ and if such candidates belonging to
    reservation categories are entitled to be selected on the basis of
    their own merit, their selection cannot be counted against the quota
    reserved for the categories of vertical reservation that they belong to.
    It was further observed that reservations, both vertical and horizontal,
    are methods of ensuring representation in public services and these
    are not to be seen as rigid ‘slots’, where a candidate’s merit, which
    otherwise entitles him to be shown in the open general category, is
    foreclosed. The Bench further observed that the ‘open category’ is
    open to all and the only condition for a candidate to be shown in it
    is merit, regardless of whether reservation benefit of either type was
    available to him or her.
32. This being the settled legal position, it appears that the State of
    Madhya Pradesh itself realized the harm that it was doing to the
    reservation category candidates and chose to restore Rule 4, as it
    stood earlier, which enabled drawing up the result of the preliminary
    examination by segregating deserving meritorious reservation
    category candidates with meritorious unreserved category candidates
    at the preliminary examination stage itself. As this was the process
    that was undertaken after the judgment in Kishor Choudhary (supra),
    whereby a greater number of reservation category candidates cleared
    the preliminary examination and were held eligible to appear in the
    main examination, there can be no dispute with the legality and
    validity of such process.


3     [2020] 11 SCR 281 : (2021) 4 SCC 542
52                                                           [2024] 6 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


33. We may also note that the judgment in Kishor Choudhary (supra)
    was not subjected to challenge before this Court after the dismissal of
    the review petitions. The direction therein was to conduct and complete
    the examination process in accordance with the unamended Rules
    of the 2015. It was the later judgment in Harshit Jain (supra) that
    advocated the methodology of holding a special main examination
    for the reservation category candidates who were found eligible
    after revising the preliminary examination result in keeping with the
    unamended Rules of 2015. This direction was found to be justified
    by the Division Bench, which dismissed the writ appeal by way of
    the impugned judgment and, in our considered opinion, rightly so.
34. On the above analysis, we find that the impugned judgment dated
    25.01.2023 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya
    Pradesh at Jabalpur in Writ Appeal No. 1706 of 2022 does not brook
    interference on any ground, be it on facts or in law.
      The civil appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 5817 of 2023 is, therefore,
      bereft of merit and is accordingly dismissed.
      Further, as already mentioned hereinbefore, we are not inclined to
      entertain and consider SLP (C) Nos. 23514 and 27620 of 2023 on
      merits. The two SLPs are dismissed.
      Pending I.A.s shall also stand dismissed.
      Parties shall bear their respective costs.


      Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan                     Result of the case:
                                              Civil Appeal and SLPs dismissed.