1. Petition seeking mandamus for an additional attempt and age relaxation in a competitive examination following disruptions caused by a global pandemic. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 11 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 103
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. KHANWILKAR, INDU MALHOTRA, AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.
RACHNA & ORS. – PETITIONER
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. – RESPONDENT
Writ Petition (Civil) Nos. 1410 of 2020
Decided On : 24-02-2021
Important Points
The Court held that policy decisions regarding examination attempts and age limits are within the executive's domain. Judicial review is limited to cases of absolute capriciousness or arbitrariness. The COVID-19 pandemic does not entitle candidates to additional attempts or age relaxations contrary to the prescribed rules.
Subject
CIVIL SERVICES - EXAMINATION
Act Referred
Headnote
Constitution of India,1950 - Article 14, 19, 29 , 21, 32 and 142 - Civil services examination - Recruitment - Background facts delineated from records and relevant for purpose are that Civil Services Examination is conducted every year by 2nd respondent (Union Public Service Commission-UPSC) and for year, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) published Gazette Notification dated notifying rules for competitive examination, 2020(hereinafter being referred to as “Rules 2020”) to be held by 2nd respondent for purpose of recruitment to 24 services/posts to be held in three stages:(i) preliminary (ii) mains (iii) personality test - Scheme of Rules 2020 published is a complete code for purposes of final selection to civil services - Parameters prescribed for eligibility with regard to number of attempts and age have been provided under Rule 4 and Rule 6 of Rules 2020 - Rule 4 and Rule 6 which are relevant for purpose - Held, It has been brought to our notice that not only petitioners/intervenors before this Court, but there are large number of candidates who appeared in various examinations in year during Covid 19 pandemic and everyone must have faced some constraints/impediments/inconvenience in one way or other and this Court can take a judicial notice that these petitioners have appeared in same pattern of examination in previous years since year and what is being claimed and prayed for under guise of Covid 19 pandemic is nothing but a lame excuse in taking additional attempt to participate in Civil Service Examination 2021 to be held in future a - Court, however, make it clear that this decision would not restrict 1st respondent or executive in exercising its discretion in meeting out the nature of difficulties as being projected to this Court, if come across in future in dealing with situation, if required - Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Parties :Anushree Prashit Kapadia, Vivek Tiwari, Pramod Tiwari, Priyanka Dubey, Vinod Kumar Tewari, P.S. Narsima, Rohit Sharma, Atul Agarwal, Rounak Nayak, Arju Chaudhary, Kanti Pratap Singh, Kumar Dushyant Singh, Sneha Balapure, Ashutosh Ghade, Nikhil Bamani, Garima Bajaj, Aditya Chatterjee, Pracheta Kar, Kunal Mimani, Naresh Kaushik, Vardhman Kaushik , Arvind Kumar Sharma, Harsh V. Surana, K. L. Janjani, Advocates
For the Parties :Anushree Prashit Kapadia, Vivek Tiwari, Pramod Tiwari, Priyanka Dubey, Vinod Kumar Tewari, P.S. Narsima, Rohit Sharma, Atul Agarwal, Rounak Nayak, Arju Chaudhary, Kanti Pratap Singh, Kumar Dushyant Singh, Sneha Balapure, Ashutosh Ghade, Nikhil Bamani, Garima Bajaj, Aditya Chatterjee, Pracheta Kar, Kunal Mimani, Naresh Kaushik, Vardhman Kaushik , Arvind Kumar Sharma, Harsh V. Surana, K. L. Janjani, Advocates
Table of Contents
2. Claim that pandemic-induced disruptions and essential service duties hindered preparation, making denial of an additional attempt discriminatory and violative of fundamental rights. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 )
3. Candidates had sufficient preparation time; rules provide no discretion for age relaxation; granting selective relaxation would be discriminatory and contravene established rules. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 38 , 39 , 46 , 47 )
4. Executive policy decisions are subject to limited judicial review, permissible unless absolutely capricious, totally arbitrary, or not informed by reasons. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 )
5. Writ petition dismissed. (Para 49 )
6. To what extent can courts judicially review executive policy decisions?
Courts have limited jurisdiction to review policy decisions. Interference is permissible only if the policy is absolutely capricious, totally arbitrary, or not informed by reasons, thereby offending the basic requirements of Article 14 of the Constitution. (Para 43 , 45 )
7. Can candidates claim an additional examination attempt based on past government precedents?
No. Policy decisions depend on the specific facts and circumstances of the time. Past relaxations granted for specific reasons, such as substantial changes in examination patterns, cannot serve as a legal foundation for claiming a right to relaxation in different circumstances. (Para 41 , 42 )
8. Is granting an additional attempt only to a specific subset of candidates legally sustainable?
No. Such selective relaxation can be discriminatory. If a hardship affected all candidates, granting benefits to only some while excluding others—such as those who have crossed the upper age limit—violates the principle of equality. (Para 38 , 39 )
JUDGMENT :
AJAY RASTOGI, J.
1. Application(s) for intervention are allowed.
2. The batch of petitioners were hopeful that in their last attempt, they may qualify in the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2020 (in short “Examination 2020”) which was held on 4th October 2020 but when they failed to achieve their goal, approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition under 1st Article 32 of the Constitution seeking mandamus to the respondent to extend one additional attempt to the petitioners/intervenors as they are being barred from attempting the examination in future on account of exhausting of available attempts or on account of age bar subsequent to Examination 2020.
3. The prayer which has been made in the instant petition is as follows:
“(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof and declare that the action of the respondents of not issuing appropriate policy for grant of an extra attempt to candidates for whom civil services examination 2020 would be last attempt as being violative of Articles 14, 19, 29 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and by way of issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction of or in the nature of mandamus, and/or any other writ, order or direction, interalia, direct the Respondent/s to provide one extra attempt to the last attempt candidates including the petitioners, in addition to number of permissible attempts: and/or
(b) Pass any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”
Brief Factual Matrix
4. The background facts delineated from the records and relevant for the purpose are that the Civil Services Examination is conducted every year by the 2nd respondent (Union Public Service Commission-UPSC) and for the year 2020, the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training) published Gazette Notification dated 12th February, 2020 notifying the rules for competitive examination, 2020(hereinafter being referred to as “Rules 2020”) to be held by the 2nd respondent for the purpose of recruitment to 24 services/posts to be held in three stages:(i) preliminary (ii) mains (iii) personality test.
5. The scheme of Rules 2020 published on 12th February, 2020 is a complete code for the purposes of final selection to civil services. The parameters prescribed for eligibility with regard to number of attempts and age have been provided under Rule 4 and Rule 6 of the Rules 2020. Rule 4 and Rule 6 which are relevant for the purpose are mentioned hereunder:
“4. Every candidate appearing at the examination who is otherwise eligible, shall be permitted six attempts at the examination.
Provided that this restriction on the number of attempts will not apply in the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates who are otherwise eligible.
Provided further that the number of attempts permissible to candidates belonging to Other Backward Classes, who are otherwise eligible, shall be nine. The relaxation will be available to the candidates who are eligible to avail of reservation applicable to such candidates.
Provided further that candidates belonging to persons with benchmark disability will get as many attempts as are available to candidates other than persons with benchmark disability of his or her community, subject to the condition that a candidate of person with benchmark disability belonging to the General and EWS Category shall be eligible for nine attempts. Necessary action to make corresponding changes in respective Rules/regulations pertaining to various services is being taken separately. The relaxation will be available to the candidate of persons with benchmark disability who are eligible to avail of reservation applicable to such candidates.
Note:
(I) An attempt at a Preliminary Examination shall be deemed to be an attempt at the Civil Services Examination.
(II) If a candidate actual
