'Domino Effect' Looms: MP High Court Slams Bid to Swap Secured Job for Lower Preference

In a stark reminder that high merit doesn't entitle candidates to rewrite their choices post-selection, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore dismissed a writ petition by Jitendra Mewade, a top performer in the 2024 Group-4 Combined Recruitment Test. Justice Jai Kumar Pillai ruled that once allotted a top-preferred post under the "merit-cum-preference" system, candidates can't demand a lower-ranked one, as it would upend allocations for thousands.

The February 2026 judgment (delivered April 2) rejected Mewade's challenge to the November 24, 2025 select list, which favored respondents 4 and 5—scoring 99.73 and 99.62 percentiles—for Assistant Grade-III (Post Code 83) in a state department.

From Top Percentile to Top Choice: The Petitioner's High-Stakes Gamble

Mewade, armed with a B.Sc. in Computer Science, CPCT clearance, and stenography certification, aced the test with a stellar 99.927 percentile. Eligible for multiple Class-III posts across 57 departments and 117 codes, he locked Post Code 144 (Assistant Grade-III-cum-Steno Typist-cum-Computer Operator) as his No. 1 preference and relegated Post Code 83 to No. 36.

The Employee Selection Board (ESB) allotted him his first choice, true to the rules. But Mewade turned to the court under Article 226, seeking to quash the list for Post 83 and secure it via mandamus , arguing pure merit should trump his "randomly" filled preferences.

The timeline: Advertisement led to online applications with mandatory preference orders; results in late 2025 sparked the December-filed petition, reserved March 16, 2026.

'Merit Over Preference? Not So Fast,' Petitioner Argues—Backed by Precedents

Mewade's counsel, L.C. Patne, contended the ESB ignored his superior score, allotting Post 83 to lower rankers solely on their higher preferences. Citing Bibhudatta Mohanty v. Union of India (2002) 4 SCC 16, State of U.P. v. Omprakash (2006) 6 SCC 474, and Archana Bamniya v. State of M.P. (2007 MPLJ 484), he claimed preferences can't override open merit, especially under 2013 Junior Service Rules emphasizing merit alone.

In rejoinder, he dismissed a 2017 standing notice as non-statutory.

Respondents Fire Back: 'You Locked It, You Got It—Deal With It'

ESB's Manu Maheshwari defended the Rule Book's Chapter 3, Rule 3.1: Allotment follows "merit-cum-preference," with high-merit candidates prioritized per their locked order. State counsel Aditya Singh echoed that Mewade's top slot earned his No. 1 post; lower preferences are skipped post-allotment.

Altering this, they warned, would chaos 1,000 posts and lakhs of candidates, citing the 2017 notice's long-standing clarity.

Court's Razor-Sharp Dissection: Merit Empowers Choice, Not Chaos

Justice Pillai limited judicial review to "patent illegality," not re-appraising selections. He unpacked the rules: Candidates must rank preferences; high merit lets them pick first from their list.

"The fundamental objective of the ' Merit-cum-Preference ' methodology is to empower the meritorious candidate to secure the specific post they deem best for themselves. It is a harmonious blend where merit determines when a candidate gets to choose, and preference determines what they are allotted."

Distinguishing petitioner's precedents (which struck employer-imposed preferences), the court invoked M.P. Public Service Commission v. Manish Bakawale (2021) 18 SCC 61: Candidates bind themselves by preferences; upsetting them displaces innocents.

Mewade's "random" filing? "Sheer negligence... cannot be wielded as a weapon." Doctrines of estoppel and acquiescence sealed it—he reaped his top post, can't "approbate and reprobate."

Punchy Quotes That Pack a Punch

  • "Once a candidate achieves high merit and is successfully allotted their highest available preferred post, the allotment process... attains finality."
  • "The petitioner willingly... locked in Post Code 144 as preference #1... Having consented to the rules of the game and having reaped the benefit... the grievance raised is entirely self-inflicted."
  • "If this Court were to permit a single candidate to arbitrarily discard their 1st preference and lay claim to their 36th preference... it would trigger a disastrous domino effect."

A cautionary note to ESB: Embed allotment mechanics explicitly in future ads for bulletproof transparency.

No Writs, No Reversal: Stability Over Individual Whims

"The present writ petition is found to be wholly devoid of substance and merit and the same is hereby dismissed."

No costs; applications closed. This reinforces recruitment sanctity, shielding mass processes from post-facto tweaks. Future candidates: Choose wisely—your lock is final. As news reports noted, it averts infringement on " vested rights of third parties," preserving statewide equity.