Prohibition of First-Come-First-Serve Selection in Public Sector Training Programs

Introduction

In Vivek Dwivedi v. Union of India, Ministry of Jal Shakti, Department of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvenation & Others (2025 MPHC-IND 10374), the Madhya Pradesh High Court examined the legality of a government advertisement inviting applications for a water-auditor training course on a first-come-first-serve basis. The petitioner, Mr. Vivek Dwivedi, challenged the advertisement dated 15 October 2024 and the subsequent select list of 25 participants dated 22 November 2024, on the ground that a first-come-first-serve selection process is arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution, and contrary to binding Supreme Court precedents. The respondents defended the policy as a legitimate administrative choice and contended that, since the training was completed by January 2025, the petition had become infructuous.

Summary of the Judgment

Hon’ble Justice Subodh Abhyankar held that:

The first-come-first-serve policy for selection in public sector training is inherently flawed and violates the principles of equality and fairness under Article 14.
The Supreme Court’s decisions in Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2012) 3 SCC 1 and Anant Raj Ltd. v. State of Haryana (2021) clearly condemn this policy.
Despite these conclusions, the petition was dismissed as infructuous, since the training course had already been conducted and concluded.
A prospective directive was issued prohibiting the respondents from employing a first-come-first-serve method in future training or certification exercises; instead, they must adopt merit-based selection (e.g., written tests, interviews or other transparent screening processes).

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Centre for Public Interest Litigation v. Union of India (2012) 3 SCC 1: The Supreme Court identified a “fundamental flaw” in first-come-first-serve policies for public contracts and licenses, observing that they grant an unfair advantage to those with advance access to information. It mandated that public authorities adopt rational, transparent and non-discriminatory selection methods.
Anant Raj Ltd. v. State of Haryana (Civil Appeal No. 6472/2021, 27 October 2021): The Supreme Court reiterated that first-come-first-serve basis selection is neither rational nor in public interest and held it to be violative of Article 14’s guarantee of equality.

Legal Reasoning

The Court applied the following reasoning:

Arbitrariness and Chance: First-come-first-serve inherently rewards speed and insider knowledge rather than merit, introducing an element of “pure chance or accident” into the allocation of public resources.
Equality Before Law (Article 14): The policy denies all eligible applicants an equal opportunity to compete on their qualifications and capabilities, thereby breaching the constitutional guarantee of equality.
Judicial Authority to Issue Prospective Directions: Even when a challenge becomes moot, courts can and should issue prospective directions to prevent recurrence of unlawful administrative practices.
Balance Between Mootness and Public Interest: Though the specific relief (quashing the advertisement and select list) would not restore any practical benefit to the petitioner, the Court seized the opportunity to safeguard future applicants by curbing a flawed policy.

Impact on Future Cases and Practices

This judgment serves as a binding reminder to all public authorities that:

First-come-first-serve selection for training courses, certifications, contracts or licenses is contrary to established constitutional norms and Supreme Court jurisprudence.
Merit-based, transparent processes—such as written examinations, interviews, scoring rubrics or a combination thereof—must be adopted to ensure fairness and prevent arbitrariness.
Administrative policies and advertisements must be carefully drafted to avoid procedural defects and ensure compliance with Article 14.
Court-issued prospective directions can guide administrative agencies even when substantive relief is rendered impractical by intervening events.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Article 14: A fundamental right that guarantees every person equality before the law and equal protection of laws within the territory of India.
First-Come-First-Serve Basis: A selection method where the earliest applicants are accepted until vacancies are filled. It lacks objective criteria and is susceptible to insider manipulation.
Writ Petition under Article 226: A legal remedy filed in a High Court to enforce fundamental rights or correct administrative action.
Mootness/Infructuousness: A situation where the subject matter of litigation ceases to have practical significance, often because the contested act has already been completed or overtaken by events.
Prospective Directions: Remedies that apply to future actions of public authorities, aimed at preventing recurrence of unlawful practices.

Conclusion

The Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in Vivek Dwivedi v. Union of India reaffirms the constitutional mandate for fair and merit-based administrative procedures. By prohibiting the use of first-come-first-serve selection for public sector training and certifications, the Court aligns state practice with Supreme Court precedents and strengthens the principle of equality under Article 14. Although the specific petition was dismissed as infructuous, the prospective directive will shape future government policies, ensuring that all applicants compete on a level playing field and that public resources are allocated through transparent, rational and non-discriminatory means.