Why a rule change that helped reserved candidates actually hurt them
MPSC stopped top-scoring reserved candidates from being counted in the general pool at the prelims stage. The Supreme Court said that move was 'patently harmful' to the very people it was meant to help.
Struck down.
Rule change reversed.
After three courts.
MPSC stopped top-scoring reserved candidates from being counted in the general pool at the prelims stage. The Supreme Court said that move was 'patently harmful' to the very people it was meant to help.
A rule change meant to protect reserved seats ended up pushing their own top scorers out of the open category.
In November 2019, the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (MPPSC) advertised 571 state service posts. Thousands sat for the preliminary exam in January 2020 — the hall was packed, answer sheets rustling under the fluorescent lights of examination centres across the state. Then, between the exam and its results, the state government quietly changed the rules. The amendment looked like a technical tweak. It turned out to be a landmine — one that hurt the very people it was meant to help.
The question that hung over the entire process — argued in hushed tones in court corridors, debated in lawyers' chambers thick with the smell of old case files — was this: Could a state change its examination rules after the exam was held, in a way that forced top-scoring reserved category candidates to occupy reserved seats instead of open seats — and then defend that change as pro-reservation?
When the rule changed mid-stream
The MPPSC conducted the State Service Examination-2019 under the MP State Service Examination Rules, 2015, for 571 posts spanning various state services. After the preliminary exam was held in January 2020 but before results were declared, the state government amended Rule 4(3)(d)(III) on February 17, 2020. The notification landed on desks with the weight of a bureaucratic routine — but its effects were anything but routine.
The amended rule said that meritorious reserved category candidates — those who scored high enough to qualify for unreserved, or open, seats — would no longer be clubbed with unreserved candidates at the preliminary and main examination stages. They would only be adjusted into open slots at the very end, during final selection. This was a fundamental shift from the earlier framework, where a reserved category candidate's merit could earn them a place in the open category at every stage of the selection process.
On December 21, 2020, the MPPSC declared the preliminary result under this amended rule. Reserved category candidates who had scored high marks found themselves locked into reserved slots. Their high scores no longer helped them compete for open seats. Worse, their presence in the reserved pool pushed other deserving reserved candidates further down the merit list — a paradox that struck at the heart of the reservation system.
Why the High Court struck it down
Multiple writ petitions challenged the amendment. The petitions piled up on the registrar's desk at the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur — each one carrying the story of a candidate whose hard work had been undone by a rule change they never saw coming. The High Court heard the matter, and on April 7, 2022, a Division Bench in Kishor Choudhary struck down the amended Rule 4(3)(d)(III) as ultra vires — beyond the legal authority of the rule-making body. The court said the amendment violated the very purpose of reservation by harming the candidates it was supposed to protect.
Meanwhile, the state government itself recognised the problem. On December 20, 2021 — even before the High Court's final judgment — it restored the original rule. The MPPSC then revised the preliminary result under the old rule. More candidates — including several reserved category candidates who had scored high enough for open seats — now qualified for the main examination. The revised list was longer, and for many, it brought a flicker of hope.
The special main exam and the normalization puzzle
But a new problem emerged. The main examination had already been held under the amended rule. Should the entire main exam be cancelled and re-conducted? That would have meant starting from scratch — a costly and time-consuming process that would have penalised candidates who had already cleared the first main examination through no fault of their own.
A single judge of the High Court in Harshit Jain said no to a complete cancellation. Instead, on November 29, 2022, the judge directed a special main examination for the newly qualified candidates. The results of the two main examinations — the first one and the special one — would be merged using a normalization process (a statistical method that adjusts scores so that candidates from different exam sessions can be fairly compared). The judge's order was careful, precise — an attempt to balance the scales without tipping the entire process over.
The Division Bench upheld this approach on January 25, 2023. Seven petitioners who had appeared in the special main exam and failed both the exam and the normalization process then appealed to the Supreme Court. Their appeal argued that the entire recruitment process was fundamentally flawed — that the normalization process was arbitrary, and that conducting a special main exam for some candidates while others had already taken the first main exam was inherently unfair.
What the Supreme Court saw
The Supreme Court bench — Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar — heard the appeal on May 1, 2024. The courtroom fell silent as the arguments unfolded. The petitioners' counsel pressed hard on the unfairness of the process. The respondents countered with the need for a pragmatic solution to an unprecedented situation.
The court disagreed with the petitioners. It held that the normalization process was applied uniformly to marks of all candidates who appeared in two separate main examinations. The process was conducted under expert guidance and used a transparent formula — a methodology that could not be faulted unless arbitrariness or malfeasance was demonstrated. The court found no such evidence. The file, the judges noted, contained no hint of wrongdoing.
More importantly, the Supreme Court examined the amended rule itself. The bench called it "patently harmful" to reservation category candidates. The court relied on its earlier judgment in Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P. (2021) 4 SCC 542, which had already established that meritorious reserved category candidates who have not availed any relaxation must be considered for open seats at every stage of selection, not just at the final stage.
The court's central reasoning was this: An examination rule that prevents meritorious reserved category candidates from being clubbed with unreserved candidates at the preliminary stage causes such candidates to occupy reserved slots that would otherwise go to deserving reserved candidates lower in the merit list. This defeats the purpose of reservation. The amendment did not protect reserved candidates — it trapped them.
Why the process survived
The court also upheld the decision to conduct a special main examination rather than cancelling the entire process. The reasoning was practical and grounded in fairness: Where an amended rule is struck down mid-recruitment and additional candidates become eligible at the preliminary stage, conducting a special main examination for newly eligible candidates and normalizing results with the first main examination is a just and proper approach. It protects the interests of candidates who had already cleared the first examination while giving newly eligible candidates a fair chance to compete.
The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal, finding no merit in the challenge. It also dismissed two related Special Leave Petitions — SLP (C) Nos. 23514 and 27620 of 2023 — on maintainability grounds, meaning the petitioners had no legal standing to bring those challenges. The court ordered that parties shall bear their respective costs.
The broader context: Reservation law and the open category
The case sits within a well-established line of Supreme Court precedent on the rights of meritorious reserved category candidates. In Saurav Yadav v. State of U.P. (2021) 4 SCC 542, the court had already clarified that reserved category candidates who secure higher marks than unreserved category candidates must be adjusted against open category vacancies at every stage of the selection process. The MPPSC amendment directly contradicted this principle.
The court also cited State of U.P. and Others v. Atul Kumar Dwivedi and Others — (2022) 11 SCC 578, and Tajvir Singh Sodhi and Others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others — 2023 SCC OnLine SC 344, reinforcing the consistent judicial position that reservation is not a ceiling but a floor, and that merit among reserved category candidates must be recognised at every stage.
The case also engaged multiple legal provisions: Rule 4 of the Madhya Pradesh State Service Examination Rules, 2015, which governs the mode of preparation of the select list; the amended Rule 4(3)(d)(III) which was the provision under challenge; Section 4(4) of the M.P. Lok Seva (Anusuchit Jatiyon, Anusuchit Jan Jatiyon aur Anya Pichhade Vargon Ke Liye Arakshan) Adhiniyam, 1994, which deals with adjustment of meritorious reserved category candidates; and the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India, which governs rules of recruitment.
What this means for recruitments
For state public service commissions and examination bodies, the message is clear: You cannot change the rules mid-stream in a way that harms reserved category candidates. The benefit of reservation is not a ceiling — it is a floor. Candidates from reserved categories who score high enough to compete in the open category must be allowed to do so at every stage of selection.
THE PLAY: When drafting examination rules, ensure that meritorious reserved category candidates who have not availed any relaxation are clubbed with unreserved candidates at every stage — preliminary, main, and final — not just at the final selection stage.
THE TEST: Does your recruitment rule allow a reserved category candidate who scores higher than the last unreserved candidate to be counted in the open category at every stage? If not, the rule will likely be struck down.
WHAT THIS MEANS: The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that reservation is a tool for inclusion, not a cage. A rule that confines high-scoring reserved candidates to reserved slots harms both the individual candidate and the broader purpose of reservation. Examination bodies must design rules that recognise merit across categories at every stage of selection.
The court ended where it began: with a rule that was meant to protect, but ended up pushing its own top scorers out of the open category. The judgment serves as a reminder that well-intentioned policies must be tested against their actual effects — and that the Constitution's promise of equality cannot be reduced to a procedural formality.