No Extra Chance For UPSC Exams; Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Of Last Attempt Civil Service Candidates

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed the petition seeking extra chance in UPSC civil service exams for the candidates who had exhausted their last attempt in October 2020.The petitioners, who had given their last attempt in Civil Service Examination 2020, had sought for an extra chance citing difficulties created by COVID-19 pandemic and the national lockdown. The petitioners argued that the pandemic affected their preparation and sought for extra attempt.Justice AM Rastogi, who read out the operative part of the judgment, appreciated the efforts of the Advocate on Record of the petitioner, Anushree Kapadia."You argued well. You were clear on facts", the judge told the lawyer.The Centre had initially made an offer to give extra attempt, subject to the age-bar. However, the petitioners argued for age-relaxation as well. Thereafter, the bench decided to hear the case on merits.On 9th February, 2021, a Bench comprising Justices AM Khanwilkar, Indu Malhotra and Ajay Rastogi had reserved judgment in the matter(Rachna v Union of India). WHAT DID THE COURT SAY? The Court observed that the question before them was whether the Petitioners/Intervenors and other similarly placed candidates are entitled to another/additional chance for CSE 2021 on account of the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic. The Judgement states that while what is prayed by the Petitioners "in the first blush appears to be attractive but it lacks legal strength and foundation for various reasons". Present Petitioners' complaint cannot be taken into isolation The Judgement states that the State Commissions/recruiting agencies must have conducted their examinations/recruitment tests for various services and merely because the present Petitioners have made a complaint to the Court, their prayer cannot be taken into isolation and does not give them a legitimate right to claim additional attempt/benefit, which is otherwise not permissible under the scheme of Rules 2020. Further, it has been observed that "…what is being claimed and prayed for under the guise of COVID 19 pandemic is nothing but a lame excuse in taking additional attempt to participate in the Civil Service Examination 2021 to be held in the future…". "The data furnished to this Court by the Commission clearly indicate that various selections have been held by the Commission for the Central Services…, if this Court shows indulgence to few who had participated in the Examination 2020, it well set down a precedent and also have a cascading effect on examinations in other streams, for which we are dissuaded to exercise plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution." Solely providing relaxation to candidates who are not age-barred is discriminatory The Judgement goes on to record that Rule 4 and Rule 6 of the Rules for Competitive Examination, 2020 prescribe the eligibility with regard to number of attempts and age respectively, with Rule 6 categorically stating that the age-limits prescribed can in no case be relaxed. "So far as the candidates who appear in the general category and have crossed the age of 32 years, no discretion is left with the authority to grant any relaxation in upper age limit prescribed for the candidates appeared in the instant Examination 2020". When the Centre decided to provide a one-time relaxation to candidates who were not age-barred, it had been opposed by the Petitioners on the ground that excluding those who were age-barred was discriminatory. The Court has found in the submission of the Petitioners and noted that all attemptees, irrespective of the nature of attempts, must have faced the same consequences as a result of the pandemic and consequently, it would be advisable to avoid any concession that is not envisaged by the Rules. "….we are also of the view that it is advisable to avoid this situation and any relaxation which is not permissible either in attempt or age under the scheme of Rules 2020 apart from being in contravention to the rules, it may be discriminatory and it is advisable not to exercise discretion in implementing what is being proposed by the 1st respondent in compliance of the order of this Court dated 30th September, 2020". No substance in submission of Petitioners that Respondent has exercised discretion in earlier selections The Court observed that there was no substance in the submission of the Petitioners that the Respondent had exercised discretion as a matter of policy in earlier selections and that the Petitioners had a legitimate expectation that the Government would do the same in the instant matter in view of the unprecedented situation. This was rejected "for the reason that the policy decisions which had been taken by the executive on earlier occasions of which a reference has been made always depend on the facts and circumstances at the given point of time and has to be tested independently in the circumstances in which...

No Extra Chance For UPSC Exams; Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Of Last Attempt Civil Service Candidates

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags