Summary
The Supreme Court declined to compel an additional Civil Services Examination attempt or age relaxation for candidates who exhausted eligibility in the 2020 examination during the pandemic. The governing rules provided no discretion for the requested concession, and earlier policy relaxations arose in different circumstances. The Court also declined to adopt a proposed concession limited to certain last-attempt candidates, noting the wider comparable hardships. The petition was dismissed, while future executive consideration of difficulties remained unrestricted by this decision.
Issues
- Whether pandemic-related preparation difficulties entitled last-attempt or age-barred candidates to a judicially mandated additional chance in CSE 2021.
- Whether earlier relaxations or the Government’s limited conditional proposal justified such relief.
Provisions considered
- Rules 4 and 6, Civil Services Examination Rules, 2020The prescribed attempt and age limits, with enumerated relaxations, did not confer discretion to grant the additional concession sought. (¶¶ 5-6, 32-36)
- Article 14, Constitution of IndiaPrevious circumstance-specific relaxations did not establish a right to equivalent relief, and restricting a pandemic concession to selected last-attempt candidates raised problems of unequal treatment. (¶ 38-45)
Held
- The rules governed attempts and age, and supplied no enabling discretion for the relief claimed by these petitioners. Pandemic inconvenience did not itself create a legal right to an additional attempt outside that scheme. (¶ 32-36)
- The examination had been postponed, allowing additional preparation time, and candidates had received a further withdrawal window. The Court considered these measures and the hardship experienced by candidates across examinations. (¶¶ 33-35, 46-47)
- The limited concession proposed for consideration as part of a consent disposal was not adopted. Comparable pandemic hardships extended beyond that group, including to other attemptees and age-barred candidates. (¶¶ 12, 37-39)
- Past policy relaxations in different circumstances did not warrant a mandamus requiring a new policy. Limited judicial review of policy differs from directing the executive to frame it in a particular way. (¶ 40-45)
- The Court declined Article 142 relief given the wider consequences for other examinations, but clarified that its decision did not restrict future executive consideration of such difficulties. (¶ 47-48)
Result
Writ petition dismissed; no additional attempt or age relaxation directed. Future executive consideration of difficulties left open.