Vijay vs M.P. Public Service Commission

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 and 19(1)(g) - Recruitment for public employment - Eligibility criteria - Distinction between "essential" and "desirable" qualifications - Candidates cannot be rejected based on a qualification listed as desirable being treated as mandatory unless explicitly provided in the advertisement. (Para 26)

(B) Recruitment Advertisement - Ambiguity or vagueness - Any ambiguity in the terms of a recruitment advertisement must be resolved in favor of the candidate and not the employer. (Para 27)

(C) Service Jurisprudence - "Rules of the game" - Eligibility criteria cannot be altered after the selection process has commenced or been completed; introducing unstated requirements at a belated stage is arbitrary and prohibited under Article 14. (Paras 29, 30, 31)

(D) Public Law - Doctrine of legitimate expectation - Candidates have a legitimate expectation that their candidature will be evaluated strictly according to the conditions prescribed in the advertisement. (Para 32)

Facts of the case:
Candidates possessing post-graduate degrees applied for the posts of medical officers and specialist doctors. The recruitment advertisement listed the post-graduate qualification as an essential educational requirement and categorized permanent registration with the state medical council as a desirable qualification. Despite possessing the essential degrees by the cut-off date and participating in the selection process and interviews, the candidates' applications were rejected because their post-graduate additional registration was obtained after the cut-off date, a condition not explicitly mentioned as essential in the advertisement.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the requirement for additional registration was placed under the heading of desirable qualifications and not essential educational qualifications. It held that the recruiting agency cannot import eligibility conditions from extraneous sources such as government gazettes if they are not explicitly mentioned in the advertisement. Since the candidates possessed the essential educational qualifications by the cut-off date, their rejection based on the date of additional registration was arbitrary.

Issues: Whether the rejection of candidature solely on the ground that a post-graduate additional registration was obtained after the cut-off date is legally sustainable when such a requirement was not expressly prescribed as an essential eligibility condition in the recruitment advertisement.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a desirable qualification cannot be treated as mandatory. Changing the rules of the game after the process has begun violates the principles of fairness and transparency. Under Articles 14 and 16, the state must act predictably and honour the criteria disclosed in the advertisement; the absence of a technical registration does not bar a candidate who has already acquired the essential educational qualification by the cut-off date.

Result: Writ petitions allowed.

Legal Category Hierarchy

1. Recruitment for Medical Officers — Rejection of candidature for non-possession of PG Additional Registration not prescribed in advertisement — Challenge. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 11 )

2. Petitioners: rejection on unstated condition illegal; Respondents: eligibility must be as on cut-off date, PG registration mandatory. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )

3. Writ petitions allowed — Candidates not to be rejected solely for lack of PG Additional Registration if essential qualification possessed by cut-off date. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 )

4. Can a desirable qualification be treated as mandatory if the advertisement places it under a separate heading?

No. A desirable qualification is not mandatory unless the advertisement clearly and unambiguously so provides; ambiguity benefits the candidate. (Para 26 , 27 )

5. Must eligibility conditions be explicitly mentioned in the recruitment advertisement?

Yes. Eligibility conditions must be explicitly stated in the advertisement; candidates cannot be expected to infer conditions from extraneous sources. (Para 28 )

6. Is it permissible to reject a candidate after permitting participation on an unstated eligibility condition?

No. Rejecting candidature after participation on a condition not forming part of notified criteria amounts to changing the rules mid-game, which is impermissible. (Para 29 , 30 , 31 )

7. Does the cut-off date apply when the essential qualification is possessed but a derivative registration is obtained later?

No. Cut-off date applies to the essential qualification itself; mere non-possession of a derivative registration on that date does not bar participation. (Para 33 , 35 )

8. Do candidates have a legitimate expectation that their candidature will be evaluated strictly per the advertisement?

Yes. Candidates have a legitimate expectation that evaluation will follow notified conditions, unless overriding public interest justifies a change. (Para 32 )

ORDER :

JAI KUMAR PILLAI, J.

Since all the present writ petitions involve common questions of fact and law arising out of identical recruitment advertisements and assailing similar impugned actions of the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “MPPSC”), they are being heard and decided analogously by this common order.

2. It is the case of the petitioners that they are qualified medical practitioners holding Post Graduate Degrees/Diplomas (MD/MS/DNB) in their respective specialties such as General Medicine, Pediatrics, Anesthesiology, Surgery, ENT, Orthopedics, Gynecology, Tuberculosis, and other allied disciplines. All the petitioners possess permanent registration with the Madhya Pradesh Medical Council and are either serving as government doctors or practicing as private doctors in various government hospitals/private clinics of the State of Madhya Pradesh or are practicing as medical professionals.

3. The Respondent (MPPSC) issued various recruitment advertisements inviting online applications for the posts of Medical Officer (Grade-I) and Specialist Doctors under the Public Health and Medical Education Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh.

4. It is further the case of petitioners that as per the original advertisements, the essential eligibility condition prescribed was possession of a recognized Post Graduate qualification in the concerned specialty along with Permanent Registration with the Madhya Pradesh Medical Council. Notably, no requirement of possessing or producing a separate “Post Graduate Additional Registration Certificate” as on the cut-off date was stipulated either in the advertisements or in any corrigendum issued contemporaneously.

5. The petitioners being fully eligible as per the notified conditions, submitted their online applications within the prescribed time. In certain cases, the application portal closed prior to declaration of PG results, while in other cases, the petitioners had already acquired the PG qualification but the process of endorsement/additional registration by the Medical Council was pending due to administrative reasons beyond their control.

6. In several petitions, this Court by interim orders passed in connected writ petitions, permitted the petitioners to submit their applications and participate in the selection process, including interviews, subject to the final outcome of the writ petitions. The petitioners accordingly complied with all directions and participated bona fide in the recruitment process.

7. Subsequently, during the course of document verification or even after declaration of provisional results, the respondent (MPPSC) by issuing impugned notifications/publications rejected the candidature of the petitioners solely on the ground that their “Post Graduate Additional Registration” issued by the Madhya Pradesh Medical Council was obtained after the cut-off date of 21/04/2025.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the said ground of rejection is ex facie arbitrary and illegal, as the requirement of obtaining PG Additional Registration by the cut-off date was never a condition of eligibility under the original advertisements, nor was such a requirement uniformly applied in similar recruitments conducted by MPPSC.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioners further argue that in many instances, the respondents themselves issued admit cards, accepted documents including Permanent and Additional Registration Certificates, issued acknowledgements thereof, and even permitted the petitioners to appear in interviews, only thereafter rejected their candidature on a hyper-technical and retrospectively introduced criterion.

10. The petitioners contend that the delay, if any, in issuance of Additional Registration by the Madhya Pradesh Medical Council was due to administrative procedures of the statutory body, which were entirely beyond the control of the petitioners, and could not have been made as ground to deny them consideration for pub

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(MP) 683

Recruitment eligibility must be based strictly on the advertisement. Desirable qualifications cannot be treated as mandatory, and altering selection criteria mid-way or post-facto is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can a desirable qualification be treated as mandatory if the advertisement places it under a separate heading?

5. Must eligibility conditions be explicitly mentioned in the recruitment advertisement?

6. Is it permissible to reject a candidate after permitting participation on an unstated eligibility condition?

7. Does the cut-off date apply when the essential qualification is possessed but a derivative registration is obtained later?

8. Do candidates have a legitimate expectation that their candidature will be evaluated strictly per the advertisement?

Judicial Analysis

2026 Supreme(MP) 683

Recruitment eligibility must be based strictly on the advertisement. Desirable qualifications cannot be treated as mandatory, and altering selection criteria mid-way or post-facto is arbitrary and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

Legal Category Hierarchy

Table of Contents

4. Can a desirable qualification be treated as mandatory if the advertisement places it under a separate heading?

5. Must eligibility conditions be explicitly mentioned in the recruitment advertisement?

6. Is it permissible to reject a candidate after permitting participation on an unstated eligibility condition?

7. Does the cut-off date apply when the essential qualification is possessed but a derivative registration is obtained later?

8. Do candidates have a legitimate expectation that their candidature will be evaluated strictly per the advertisement?

Cases Referred (8)

Judicial Analysis