Candidates cannot reopen finalized recruitment to correct false declarations after repeated correction opportunities.

The petitioners sought to have their candidature considered under the General Diploma Holder category rather than the Special Diploma Holder category, contending that their selection of the Special D.El.Ed. option in the application form was inadvertent. They also sought permission to participate in the further selection process.

The Court noted that the issue was covered by the Division Bench’s decision in Survendra v. State of Madhya Pradesh, W.A. No. 1769 of 2026, and its subsequent application in Aradhna Bajpayee v. State of Madhya Pradesh, W.A. No. 2358 of 2026.

1. Whether the petitioners could seek post-selection correction of their declared diploma category and have their candidature considered under the General Diploma Holder category.

2. Whether the petitioners could be permitted to participate in the further selection process despite the Division Bench decisions covering the issue.

The recruitment was governed by the Madhya Pradesh Employees Selection Board Rule Book, which required candidates to verify their application particulars and provided correction opportunities; Clause 7.7 granted bonus marks to candidates possessing the specified RCI-recognised Special D.El.Ed. qualification.

The Division Bench held that candidates who failed to correct their declarations during the prescribed and subsequent correction windows could not seek to reopen the completed recruitment process, as post-result changes would undermine its finality and prejudice other candidates.

It further applied the principle that fraud vitiates proceedings, relying on Mahesh Kumar Batham v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, W.A. No. 278 of 2025.

The Single Judge applied Survendra and Aradhna Bajpayee to the present petition mutatis mutandis.

The petitioners’ requested correction and further participation fell within the controversy already decided by the Division Bench in Survendra, which rejected post-result correction requests after candidates had been given opportunities to rectify their applications.

The Court also noted that Survendra had been relied upon in Aradhna Bajpayee.

As the present petition was squarely covered by those decisions, the Court considered no separate relief to be available.

The Court dismissed the writ petition, applying the Division Bench’s order in Survendra mutatis mutandis to the facts of the case.