The merit-cum-preference recruitment system allows higher-ranked candidates to secure their top choice; once a candidate is assigned their desired preference, their selection is complete, preventing them from challenging the allotment of lower-ranked posts to other candidates based on the assertion of general merit.

ORDER

This Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned select list dated 24.11.2025 (Annexure P/9) issued by Respondent No.3.

2. The petitioner seeks a writ of Certiorari to quash the impugned select list to the extent it recommends the names of Respondent No.4 & 5 for the post of Assistant Grade-III (Post Code 83) in the office of Respondent No.2. The petitioner further seeks a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider his case for appointment to the said post based on his positive merit in the "Group-4, Assistant Grade-3 Combined Recruitment Test - 2024", regardless of the preference order submitted by him.

Facts of the Case

3. The petitioner is a candidate possessing various educational qualifications, including High School (2015), Higher Secondary (2017), Diploma in Computer Application (2019), and a B.Sc. Degree in Computer Science (2020). The petitioner also cleared the Computer Proficiency Certification Test (CPCT) in 2021 and acquired a National Trade Certificate in Stenographer and Secretarial Assistant (Hindi) with an efficiency of 80 words per minute.

4. Pursuant to an advertisement issued by Respondent No.3 for filling up Class-III posts under Group-4, the petitioner submitted his online application form. As he was eligible for multiple posts, he submitted his order of preference. The post of Assistant Grade-III-cum-Steno Typist-cum-Computer Operator (Post Code No.144) was opted as his 1st preference, whereas the post of Assistant Grade-III in the office of Respondent No.2 (Post Code No.83) was placed at Sr. No.36 in his preference list.

5. In the recruitment test, the petitioner secured 99.927273 percentile marks and was declared qualified for Post Code No.144. However, for Post Code No.83, the impugned select list dated 24.11.2025 included the names of Respondent No.4 & 5, who secured 99.730216 and 99.628384 percentile marks, respectively. Aggrieved by the allotment of Post Code No. 83 to candidates with lower percentile scores, the petitioner has approached this Court.

Contentions of the Petitioner

6. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that despite securing more marks than Respondent No.4 & 5, his name was not recommended for Post Code No.83. The petitioner contends that the allotment was made purely on the basis of preference, overlooking the respective merit of the candidates.

7. The petitioner argues that he filled the order of preference randomly, and merely because Post Code 83 was opted at Sr. No.36, he cannot be deprived of the appointment. It is urged that preference is a personal choice and cannot bypass merit, relying on the decisions in the case of Bibhudatta Mohanty v. Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 16, State of U.P. & Another v. Omprakash & Others (2006) 6 SCC 474, and Smt. Archana Bamniya v. State of M.P. & Others 2007 (1) MPLJ 484.

8. Through the rejoinder, the petitioner contends that as per Clauses 10, 11, and 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Junior Service (Joint Qualifying) Examination Rules, 2013, merit is the sole criterion for the preparation of the merit list. The petitioner asserts that the 2017 standing notice relied upon by the respondents was not referenced in the Rule Book and runs contrary to the statutory rules.

Contentions of the Respondents

9. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 submits that the petition is entirely misconceived and attempts to surpass the mandatory rule of locking preferences. It is stated that the al