Krishnakant vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24613
1 WP-15049-2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
nd
ON THE 2 OF SEPTEMBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 15049 of 2025
KRISHNAKANT AND OTHERS
Versus
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri Manoj Manav - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Pradhuman Malpani - Panel Lawyer for the State.
Shri Rishabh Singh Chauhan - Advocate for the respondent No.3.
ORDER
The present petition, under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of
India, has been filed by the petitioner seeking following reliefs:-
"7.1/ That, this Hon'ble Court may pleased to issue
appropriate Writ/Order/Direction and Respondents may
kindly be directed to consider the candidature of the
Petitioners by ignoring the inadvertent mistake by which
Petitioner has clicked Yes in the SFOR category of Ex-
serviceman/Surplus employee/work charge and contingency
employee/ NCC in the interest of justice.
7.2/ That, the respondents may further be directed to
issue appointment order in favor of the Petitioners.
7.3/ That, allow the petition with cost.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 9/3/2026
7:09:12 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24613
2 WP-15049-2025
7.4/ That, any other relied this Hon'ble Court may

think fit may grant."
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners
participated in the Police Constable Recruitment Test, 2023 conducted by
the Madhya Pradesh Employees Selection Board. The petitioners belong to
the Scheduled Tribe category and have otherwise secured marks above the
relevant cut-off. While filling up the online application form, the petitioners
inadvertently selected “Yes” against the column relating to Ex-
serviceman/Surplus Employee/Work Charge and Contingency
Employee/NCC, although they did not belong to the said category.
It is further submitted that the aforesaid mistake was purely inadvertent
and bona fide and the petitioners did not derive any undue advantage on
account thereof. The petitioners have secured 143.28 marks and 154.59
marks respectively, whereas the relevant ST/Open cut-off is stated to be
140.49 marks. He has also relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Vashist Narayan Kumar vs. State of Bihar & Others passed in Civil
Appeal No.1 of 2024, dated 02/01/2024 and the order of this Court in
Himanshu Samadhia Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & Others passed in W.P.
No.29600 of 2024.
On such premises, it is prayed that the aforesaid inadvertent mistake be
ignored and the candidature of the petitioners be considered under their
actual category.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for respondents has opposed the
prayer. It is submitted that the online application form was required to be
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 9/3/2026
7:09:12 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24613
3 WP-15049-2025
filled strictly in accordance with the conditions of the recruitment

advertisement. The applicants were also provided a specific period for
correction/amendment of the online application forms. Thus, every candidate
had an opportunity to verify and rectify the particulars furnished by him/her
within the prescribed period.
It is further submitted that the petitioners did not avail the said
opportunity and are now seeking alteration of the particulars/category after
the selection process has substantially progressed. Permitting such alteration
at this stage would amount to permitting the petitioners to change the basis
on which their candidature was processed after the conclusion of the relevant
stages of recruitment.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioners participated in the
recruitment process pursuant to the advertisement issued by respondent No.3.
It is also not in dispute that, while submitting their online application forms,
the petitioners selected “Yes” against the relevant column concerning Ex-
serviceman/Surplus Employee/Work Charge and Contingency
Employee/NCC, though admittedly they did not belong to the said category.
The principal submission of the petitioners is that the aforesaid
selection was inadvertent and they did not intend to derive any benefit from
such entry.
However, the question before this Court is not merely whether the
petitioners ultimately derived any benefit from the erroneous entry. The
question is also whether, after submission of the application form and expiry
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 9/3/2026
7:09:12 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24613
4 WP-15049-2025
of the prescribed correction period, the petitioners can seek alteration of the

particulars furnished by them and consequently seek consideration of their
candidature on a different basis at a subsequent stage of the recruitment
process.
The reply filed by respondent No.3 specifically states that the
advertisement prescribed a period during which applications could be
submitted and a further period during which corrections/amendments could
be carried out. Thus, the petitioners had an opportunity to verify the
particulars entered in their online applications and to rectify any error within
the prescribed period.
No material has been brought on record to demonstrate that the
petitioners had sought correction of the aforesaid entry within the prescribed
correction period and that the respondents had refused such correction.
The recruitment process is governed by the conditions contained in the
advertisement and the applicable recruitment rules. Once a candidate submits
an application form containing a particular declaration/category and the
prescribed period for correction expires, a subsequent request for alteration,
particularly after the result has been declared, cannot ordinarily be accepted
as a matter of right.
The Apex Court in Bedanga Talukdar Vs. Saifudaullah Khan &
Others, (2011) 12 SCC 85, has emphasized that the conditions of recruitment
are required to be adhered to uniformly and relaxation of the prescribed
conditions cannot be claimed as a matter of right in the absence of a
provision permitting such relaxation.
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 9/3/2026
7:09:12 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24613
5 WP-15049-2025
Likewise, in Madan Lal & Others Vs. State of J&K & Others, (1995) 3

SCC 486, the Apex Court has reiterated the principle that a candidate who
participates in a selection process has to abide by the conditions governing
such selection and cannot subsequently seek alteration of the process to his
advantage.
The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners do
not persuade this Court to grant the relief sought in the facts of the present
case.
In Vashishta Narayan Kumar ( supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court
considered the peculiar factual circumstances where the error in the
application was found to be trivial, had no bearing upon the selection, and
the candidate had otherwise cleared the selection process. The directions
issued therein were based upon the peculiar facts and circumstances of that
case. Similarly, the decision in Himanshu Samadhia (supra) also turned upon
its own factual matrix.
The mere existence of a judgment dealing with an inadvertent error in
an application form does not confer an automatic right upon every candidate
to seek correction after expiry of the prescribed period. The Court is required
to examine whether the error can legitimately be ignored without disturbing
the recruitment process or affecting the rights and position of other
candidates.
In the present case, the petitioners admittedly selected the relevant
special-category option in their online applications. They were provided an
opportunity to correct the application during the prescribed correction period,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 9/3/2026
7:09:12 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24613
6 WP-15049-2025
but no correction was made within the said period. The fact that the

petitioners have subsequently secured marks above the ST/Open cut-off
cannot, by itself, create a right in their favour to alter the particulars
furnished in the application form after the selection process has proceeded on
the basis of the information available with the recruiting authority. The Court
cannot direct the respondents to reopen or alter the candidature of individual
candidates at a belated stage merely because, upon subsequent assessment,
the candidates may otherwise fall within the zone of consideration.
It is also pertinent that the petitioners seek not merely correction of a
typographical mistake in their name, date of birth or other innocuous
particulars, but seek a direction which would have the effect of changing the
basis on which their candidature was considered in the recruitment process.
Such a direction, if issued, would amount to permitting alteration of
the application after the prescribed stage and may have a consequential effect
upon the rights and ranking of other candidates who participated in the
recruitment process on the basis of the same conditions.
The writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot be
exercised to rewrite the conditions of recruitment or to create an exception in
favour of an individual candidate contrary to the procedure prescribed for all
candidates.
The contention that the petitioners did not derive any actual benefit
from the erroneous selection also does not, in the facts of the present case,
warrant interference. The requirement of furnishing correct particulars is
itself a condition of the recruitment process. A candidate cannot claim
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 9/3/2026
7:09:12 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24613
7 WP-15049-2025
correction as a matter of right merely on the ground that the incorrect

declaration ultimately did not result in any additional marks or benefit.
The principle of equality in public employment requires that all
candidates be treated in accordance with the same procedure and prescribed
conditions. Permitting correction at this stage, without any enabling
provision in the recruitment rules, would itself amount to granting a special
indulgence to the petitioners.
This Court is conscious of the fact that the petitioners have relied upon
their merit and have pointed out that their marks are above the stated
ST/Open cut-off. However, merit by itself cannot cure an ineligible or
procedurally impermissible claim. Eligibility and consideration of
candidature have to be determined in accordance with the conditions
governing the recruitment. The petitioners have failed to demonstrate any
legal right under the advertisement or recruitment rules entitling them to
alteration of the option/category after expiry of the prescribed correction
period and after declaration of the result.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds no arbitrariness,
perversity or violation of any statutory or constitutional right in the action of
the respondents in declining to alter the particulars furnished by the
petitioners in their online application forms at this belated stage.
The petitioners may have committed the mistake bona fide; however,
bona fide nature of the mistake, by itself, does not confer an enforceable
right to seek correction after the prescribed stage, particularly when the
recruitment process has already proceeded on the basis of the applications
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 9/3/2026
7:09:12 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-IND:24613
8 WP-15049-2025
submitted by all candidates.

Consequently, no case for interference under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India is made out. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
pwn*

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: PAWAN KUMAR
Signing time: 9/3/2026
7:09:12 PM