Supreme Court of India
RACHNA & ORS.versusUNION OF INDIA & ANR.
- Citation
- 2021 INSC 116
- Decided
- 24 February 2021
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- A M KHANWILKAR
Holding
The Court held that the executive’s policy of not granting an additional attempt was not arbitrary or capricious, the Rules 2020 do not permit such relaxation, and therefore no mandamus could be issued.
Summary
The petitioners, who had taken their last permissible attempt at the UPSC Civil Services Preliminary Examination 2020, claimed that the Covid‑19 pandemic prevented them from effectively preparing and therefore sought a mandamus directing the Union of India to grant them an additional attempt. The Court examined whether the policy of not granting an extra attempt was arbitrary, capricious or violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, and whether the scheme of Rules 2020 permitted any discretion to relax the number of attempts or the age limit. It held that the policy decision was a legitimate exercise of executive discretion, not subject to judicial intervention absent arbitrariness, and that the Rules expressly barred any relaxation in attempts or age for general‑category candidates. Consequently, the petition for mandamus was dismissed. The Court also clarified that policy decisions are reviewable only on limited grounds and that mandating a specific policy would amount to legislation, which is beyond the Court’s domain.
Issues considered
- The petitioners are entitled to an additional attempt at the Civil Services Examination under the circumstances of the Covid‑19 pandemic.
- Whether the Union of India's policy of not granting an extra attempt is arbitrary, capricious or violative of Articles 14 and 21.
- Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to direct the executive to frame a policy granting an extra attempt.
- Whether the scheme of Rules 2020 provides any discretion to relax the number of attempts or the age limit.
Legislation cited
Subjects
Civil Services ExaminationUPSCpolicy decisionjudicial reviewmandamusattemptsage limitCovid-19administrative lawfundamental rightsArticle 14Article 21
Judgment
[2021] 2 S.C.R. 201 201
RACHNA & ORS. A
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 1410 of 2020)
FEBRUARY 24, 2021 B
[A.M. KHANWILKAR, INDU MALHOTRA AND
AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.]
Constitution of India – Art. 32 – Writ petition under, by last
attemptee of the UPSE exam – Mandamus sought to 1st respondent-
Union of India to extend one additional attempt as they are being C
barred from attempting the examination in future on account of
exhausting of available attempts or on account of age bar subsequent
to Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2020; and that due to
Covid 19 pandemic, they could not effectively participate in
Examination 2020 – Held: Such direction cannot be issued – Policy D
decisions are open for judicial review by this Court if it is either
absolutely capricious, totally arbitrary or not informed of reasons
– Judicial review of a policy decision and to issue mandamus to
frame policy in a particular manner are absolutely different –
Executive can take a policy decision based on the prevailing
circumstances for better administration and in meeting out the E
exigencies but at the same time, it is not within the domain of the
Courts to legislate – Court is called upon to consider the validity of
a policy decision only when a challenge is made that such policy
decision infringes fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution
or any other statutory right – Merely because as a matter of policy, F
if the 1st respondent had granted relaxation in the past for the reason
that there was a change in the examination pattern/syllabus and in
the given situation, had considered to be an impediment for the
participant in the CSE, no assistance can be claimed by the
petitioners in seeking mandamus to the 1st respondent as a matter
of right – Policy decisions which had been taken by the executive G
on earlier occasions always depend on the facts and circumstances
at the given point of time – Administrative law – Policy decisions –
Judicial Review.
H
201
202 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.
A Dismissing the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The syllabus of the preliminary examination has
not changed since 2015 and after the Rules for Competitive
examination 2020 were notified by the 1st respondent for Civil
Services Exam 2020, the notice, was published on 12.2.2020 and
B the scheduled date of the examination was fixed on 31st May,
2020 but because of the unprecedented situation of Covid19
pandemic, the Commission took a policy decision to defer the
examination and in the changed situation, after there was a
relaxation in the lockdown, ultimately on 5th June, 2020 took a
decision to hold the examination on 4 th October 2020 and,
C therefore, instead of three months, the candidates got additional
five months (i.e. eight months) to which one ordinarily can prepare
for appearing in the examination in terms of the scheme of Rules
2020. [Para 33][223-A-D]
1.2 Under the scheme of Rules 2020, mere filling up of the
D form is not sufficient to avail an attempt. If someone appeared in
either of the paper of the preliminary examination, that was
considered to be an attempt availed by the candidate and, in the
given situation, after the application form was filled, the candidates
who wanted to withdraw their application form at the later stage
E because of the Covid-19 pandemic, the commission took a policy
decision to open the window for the second time, which in the
ordinary course is not available under the scheme of rules, for
the candidates who intended to withdraw their application from
1st August, 2020 to 8th August, 2020. Since the examination was
scheduled for 4th October, 2020 only those candidates were left
F who were mentally prepared to appear and willing to avail an
opportunity of appearing in the Examination 2020 and after
appearing in the examination, when they could not qualify, it has
given a way to the instant litigation on the specious ground of
Covid-19 pandemic that they were unable to effectively
G participate in the process of selection which has been initiated
by the Commission in holding preliminary examination on 4th
October, 2020. [Para 34][223-D-G]
1.3 This court cannot loose sight of the fact that apart from
the present Examination 2020, remedial measures were adopted
H
RACHNA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 203
for the candidates who had participated in the various A
examinations/recruitment tests held for Central services by the
Commission at the given point of time during the Covid 19
pandemic and apart from that, the State Commissions/recruiting
agencies must have conducted their examinations/recruitment
tests for various services and merely because the present
B
petitioners made a complaint to this Court, cannot be taken into
isolation for the purpose of seeking additional chance/attempt in
the backdrop of Covid-19 pandemic, which has been faced by not
only the candidates appeared in Examination 2020 but by the
candidates appeared in the various examinations/recruitment
tests held by the State Commissions or by other recruiting C
agencies and by and large, every member of the society in one
way or the other but that does not in any manner give legitimate
right to the petitioners to claim additional benefit/attempt which
is otherwise not permissible under the scheme of Rules 2020.
[Para 35][223-G-H; 224-A-C]
D
1.4 There are limited attempts for the candidates who
appeared in the general category and the scheme of Rules 2020
does not provide any discretion to the 1st respondent to grant
relaxation either in attempt or in age and any exercise of discretion
which does not vest with the 1st respondent, if exercised, may go
in contravention to the scheme of Rules 2020. [Para 36][224-C- E
D]
1.5 Taking note of the order of this Court dated 30.9.2020
passed in WP(C) No. 1012 of 2020 in the earlier proceedings,
this Court has shown some sympathy for the candidates who were
having their last attempt and were also likely to become age F
barred for next examination, if any indulgence could be shown to
them. In compliance of the order of this Court, the 1st respondent
made endeavour to find out a way which is possible to give solace
to such candidates and placed it before this Court that too with
reservation that there is a possibility in providing one extra G
attempt for the candidates who had availed the last and final
attempt in Examination 2020 provided they are within their
respective age brackets as provided under Rule 6 of the Rules
2020. [Para 37][224-D-F]
H
204 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.
A 1.6 If an additional attempt remains restricted to the last
attemptees for the reason that they had suffered during Covid 19
pandemic, all attemptees irrespective of the nature of attempt
(i.e. 1st, 2nd etc.) who appeared in Examination 2020 must have
faced the same consequences as being faced by the writ
petitioners and each one of them have suffered in one way or the
B
other during the Covid-19 pandemic. At the same time, this
reasoning would equally apply to those who have crossed the
upper age barrier. More so, when no discretion is left with the
1st respondent to grant relaxation in the age bracket to the
candidates other than provided under Rule 6 of the scheme of
C Rules 2020 which indeed the present petitioners are not entitled
to claim as a matter of right and that apart, those who have
withdrawn their forms either because of lack of preparation or
because of some personal reasons but have crossed the upper
age limit to appear in CSE 2021, they would also be equally
entitled to claim and no distinction could be made whether the
D
candidate has appeared in the Examination 2020 and availed the
last attempt or attempts is still available at his disposal or has
crossed the upper age limit. [Para 38][224-H; 225-A-D]
1.7 Any concession either in attempt or age is not available
under the scheme of Rules 2020, at the same time, proposal which
E has been placed by the 1st respondent apart from complaint made
inter se by the petitioners/intervenors themselves of being
discriminatory in character, 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
F contravention to the rules, it may be discriminatory and it is
advisable not to exercise discretion in implementing what being
proposed by the 1st respondent in compliance of the order of
this Court dated 30th September, 2020. [Para 39][225-D-F]
1.8 The submission that discretion has been exercised by
G the respondent as a matter of policy in the earlier selections and
the present petitioners have a legitimate expectation that the
Government must exercise its discretion to overcome the
unprecedented situation which the petitioners have faced while
appearing in the Examination 2020 and their right of fair
H
RACHNA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 205
consideration and effective participation in the selection process A
has been denied to them which is in violation of Arts. 14 and 21
of the Constitution, is without substance 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
B
be tested independently in the circumstances in which it has been
exercised by the competent authority or the 1st respondent as in
the instant case. [Para 40-41][225-F-H; 226-A-B]
1.9 It was submitted that there is always a change in the
upper age limit and number of attempts in different spell and
further emphasis was that in the year 2015, the 1st respondent C
allowed one more attempt in the Civil Service Examination 2015
for the candidates who appeared in CSE 2011. Although the
justification has been tendered by the respondents in their
response that as there was a substantial change in the pattern of
Civil Service (Preliminary) Examination 2011, in the given D
circumstances, the 1st respondent in its wisdom considered it
appropriate to grant one more attempt in CSE, 2015 to such
candidates who appeared in Civil Service Examination, 2011 either
due to reaching upper age limit or due to exhausting of number
of attempts and that was the given situation which prevailed upon
the 1 st respondent in taking a policy decision in granting E
permission but that cannot be made to be the basis or a foundation
for the petitioners to site as a precedent in claiming to seek one
additional attempt as a matter of right which is not permissible
under the scheme of Rules 2020 or with the aid of Art. 14 of the
Constitution to take a call in meeting out the difficulties which F
have been faced as alleged in the given circumstance. [Para
42][226-B-E]
2.1 Policy decisions are open for judicial review by this
Court for a very limited purpose and this Court can interfere into
the realm of public policy so framed if it is either absolutely G
capricious, totally arbitrary or not informed of reasons. [Para 43]
Union of India and Others vs. M. Selvakumar and
Another (2017) 3 SCC 504 : [2017] 4 SCR 137 - relied
on.
H
206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.
A 2.2 Judicial review of a policy decision and to issue
mandamus to frame policy in a particular manner are absolutely
different. It is within the realm of the executive to take a policy
decision based on the prevailing circumstances for better
administration and in meeting out the exigencies but at the same
time, it is not within the domain of the Courts to legislate. The
B
Courts do interpret the laws and in such an interpretation, certain
creative process is involved. The Courts have the jurisdiction to
declare the law as unconstitutional. That too, where it is called
for. The Court is called upon to consider the validity of a policy
decision only when a challenge is made that such policy decision
C infringes fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution or
any other statutory right. Merely because as a matter of policy, if
the 1st respondent has granted relaxation in the past for the
reason that there was a change in the examination pattern/syllabus
and in the given situation, had considered to be an impediment
for the participant in the CSE, no assistance can be claimed by
D
the petitioners in seeking mandamus to the 1st respondent to
come out with a policy granting relaxation to the participants who
had availed a final and last attempt or have crossed the upper
age by appearing in the Examination 2020 as a matter of right.
[Para 45][227-C-G]
E 3. It has been brought to the notice that not only the
petitioners/intervenors before this Court, but there are large
number of candidates who appeared in the various examinations
in the year 2020 during Covid 19 pandemic and everyone must
have faced some constraints/impediments/inconvenience in one
F way or the other and this Court can take a judicial notice that
these petitioners have appeared in the same pattern of
examination in the previous years since the year 2015 and 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 CSE 2021 to be held in future and there is no
G substance in either of the submissions made. [Para 46][227-G-
H; 228-A-B]
4. The data furnished to this Court by the Commission
clearly indicate that various selections have been held by the
Commission for Central Services in the year 2020 during Covid
H
RACHNA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 207
19 pandemic and selections must have been held by State A
Commissions and other recruiting agencies, if this Court shows
indulgence to few who had participated in the Examination 2020,
it will set down a precedent and also have cascading effect on
examinations in other streams, for which this Court is dissuaded
to exercise plenary powers under Art. 142 of the Constitution.
B
However, it is made clear that this decision would not restrict
the 1st respondent or the 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 the situation, if
required. [Para 47, 48][228-B-D]
Case Law Reference C
[2017] 4 SCR 137 relied on para 43
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No(s).
1410 of 2020
UNDER ARTICLE 32 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA D
Shyam Divan, C. U. Singh, Sr. Advs., Ms. Anushree Prashit
Kapadia, Advs. for the Appellants.
Tushar Mehta, SG., S. V. Raju, ASG., P.S. Narasimha, Pallav
Shishodia, Sr. Advs., Kanu Agrawal, Rajat Nair, Arvind Kumar Sharma,
E
Rohit Sharma, Atul Agarwal, Rounak Nayak, Ms. Arju Chaudhary, Ms.
Kanti Pratap Singh, Kumar Dushyant Singh, Vivek Tiwari, Ms. Priyanka
Dubey, Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, Naresh Kaushik, Vardhman Kaushik
, Aditya Chatterjee, Ms. Pracheta Kar, Kunal Mimani, Ms. Garima Bajaj,
Ashutosh Ghade, Harsh V. Surana, K. L. Janjani, Advs. for the
Respondents. F
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
RASTOGI, J.
1. Application(s) for intervention are allowed.
2. The batch of petitioners were hopeful that in their last attempt, G
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 Article 32 of the Constitution seeking
H
208 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.
A mandamus to the 1st 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
B 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
C 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, inter-alia, direct the
Respondent/s to provide one extra attempt to the last attempt
candidates including the petitioners, in addition to number of
D 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.”
E 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
F 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.
G
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
H hereunder:-
RACHNA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 209
[AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
“4. Every candidate appearing at the examination who is otherwise A
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 B
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 C
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 D
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.
E
Note:-
(I) An attempt at a Preliminary Examination shall be deemed to
be an attempt at the Civil Services Examination.
(II) If a candidate actually appears in any one paper in the
Preliminary Examination, he/she shall be deemed to have made F
an attempt at the Examination.
(III) Notwithstanding the disqualification/cancellation of
candidature, the fact of appearance of the candidate at the
examination will count as an attempt.
6. (a) A candidate must have attained the age of 21 years and G
must not have attained the age of 32 years on the 1st of August,
2020 i.e., he must have been born not earlier than 2nd August,
1988 and not later than 1st August, 1999. Necessary action to
H
210 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.
A make corresponding changes in respective Rules/Regulations
pertaining to various services is being taken separately.
(b) The upper age-limit prescribed above will be relaxable:
(i) up to a maximum of five years if a candidate belongs to
a Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe;
B
(ii) up to a maximum of three years in the case of candidates
belonging to Other Backward Classes who are eligible
to avail of reservation applicable to such candidates;
(iii) up to a maximum of three years in the case of Defence
C Services Personnel, disabled in operations during
hostilities with any foreign country or in a distributed
area and released as a consequence thereof;
(iv) up to a maximum of five years in the case of ex-
servicemen including Commissioned Officers and ECOs/
D SSCOs who have rendered at least five years Military
Service as on 1st August, 2020 and have been released;
(a) on completion of assignment (including those
whose assignment is due to be completed within
one year from 1st August, 2020 otherwise than
by way of dismissal or discharge on account of
E
misconduct or inefficiency; or
(b) on account of physical disability attributable to
Military Service; or
(c) on invalidment.
F (v) up to a maximum of five years in the case of ECOs/
SSCOs who have completed an initial period of
assignment of five years of Military Service as on 1st
August, 2020 and whose assignment has been extended
beyond five years and in whose case the Ministry of
G Defence issues a certificate that they can apply for civil
employment and that they will be released on three
months’ notice on selection from the date of receipt of
offer of appointment.
(vi) up to a maximum of 10 years in the case of Persons
H with Benchmark Disabilities viz. (a) blindness and low
RACHNA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 211
[AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
vision; (b) deaf and hard of hearing; (c) locomotor A
disability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured,
dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy;
(d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disability
and mental illness; (e) multiple disabilities from amongst
person under clauses (a) to (d) including deaf-blindness.
B
Note I :- Candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and the
Scheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes who are also
covered under any other clauses of Rule 6(b) above, viz. those
coming under the category of Ex-servicemen, Persons with
Benchmark Disabilities [viz. (a) blindness and low vision; (b) deaf
and hard of hearing; (c) locomotor disability including cerebral C
palsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular
dystrophy; (d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning
disability and mental illness; (e) multiple disabilities from amongst
person under clauses (a) to (d) including deaf-blindness.] will be
eligible for grant of cumulative age-relaxation under both the D
categories.
Note II : The details of Functional Classification (FC) and Physical
Requirements (PR) of each service are indicated in Appendix IV
of these Rules which are identified and prescribed by the respective
Cadre Controlling Authorities (CCAs) as per the provisions of E
Section 33 and 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,
2016. Only those category(ies) of disability(ies) mentioned in
Appendix IV shall apply for the examination under Persons with
Benchmark Disability (PwBD) category. Therefore, the
candidates belonging to the Persons with Benchmark Disability
categories are advised to read it carefully before applying for the F
examination.
Note III:- The term Ex-servicemen will apply to the persons who
are defined as Ex-servicemen in the Ex-servicemen (Re-
employment in Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979, as amended
from time to time. G
Note IV:- The age concession under Rule 6(b)(iv) and (v) will be
admissible to Ex-servicemen i.e. a person who has served in any
rank whether as combatant or non-combatant in the Regular Army,
Navy and Air Force of the Indian Union and who either has been
H
212 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.
A retired or relieved or discharged from such service whether at his
own request or being relieved by the employer after earning his
or her pension.
Note V:- Notwithstanding the provision of age-relaxation under
Rule 6(b)(vi) above, Candidates of Persons with Benchmark
B Disability will be considered to be eligible for appointment only if
he/she (after such physical examination as the Government or
appointment authority, as the case may be, may prescribe) is found
to satisfy the requirements of physical and medical standards for
the concerned Services/Posts to be allocated to the Candidates
of Persons with Benchmark Disability by the Government.
C
Save as provided above, the age-limits prescribed can in no
case be relaxed.
….”
6. It may be relevant to note that for the candidates who appear
D in the open category in the examination, they are permitted six attempts
but for the candidates who are the members of Scheduled Castes and
Scheduled Tribes, there is no restriction on the number of attempts
provided, they are otherwise eligible. For the candidates who are belonging
to OBC/EWS category, they can avail nine attempts. A clarification has
E further been made that if the candidate appears even in one paper of the
preliminary examination, it shall be deemed to be treated as an attempt.
At the same time under Rule 6, the age at the entry point is 21 years and
exit at the age of 32 years. But the upper age limit is relaxable to the
categories of vertical/horizontal reservations and there is no such enabling
provision granting relaxation in the upper age limit to the candidates
F belonging to general category as such those candidates of general
category who have attained the age of 32 years on 1st August, 2020 as in
the instant case became ineligible to participate in the ensuing Civil
Services Examination, 2021 (in short “CSE 2021”).
7. Pursuant to the notification dated 12th February, 2020 published
G in the Official Gazette by the 1st respondent, process of selection was
initiated by the Commission inviting applications from the eligible
candidates who wish to appear in the Examination 2020. According to
the notice published by the Commission, preliminary examination was to
be held on 31st May 2020. Appendix II-B annexed thereto deals with the
procedure for withdrawal of application after submission of online
H
RACHNA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 213
[AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
application, it could be withdrawn from 12th March, 2020 to 18th March, A
2020. Thereafter the admit cards were issued to all the candidates who
intended to participate in the selection process, but because of the
unprecedented Covid-19 pandemic, which was notified by the National
Disaster Management Authority vide its order dated 24th March 2020,
the Commission by its Press Release dated 4th May, 2020 deferred the
B
Examination 2020 and further informed that the revised schedule of
examination will be notified at a later stage.
8. Taking note of the unlock 1.0 guidelines published on 5th June
2020, the Commission decided to conduct the preliminary examination
on 4th October, 2020. Several candidates submitted their objections.
Taking note thereof, the Commission allowed the candidates to submit C
their revised choice of examination center by its letter dated 1st July,
2020 and further opened the window for withdrawal of the application
from 1st August, 2020 to 8th August, 2020. This Court can take judicial
notice of the fact that after a second opportunity was afforded to the
candidates for withdrawal of the application, only such of the candidates D
were left who had made up their mind and were mentally prepared to
appear in the ensuing preliminary examination which was scheduled to
be held on 4th October, 2020.
9. As alleged that when no decision was taken by the respondent
on their representations/objections for deferring of the examination, E
certain candidates filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.1012 of 2020 before this
Court on 5th September, 2020 seeking postponement of the Examination
2020 and the prayer for relaxation in upper age limit and an additional
attempt. This Court was not persuaded to issue a direction to the
Commission to defer the schedule of examination to be held on 4th
October, 2020 on the submissions made by the writ petitioners who F
approached this Court. Moreover, on one of the issues, this Court
expressed a sanguine hope that possibility of providing one more attempt
to such candidates with corresponding extension of age limit, if possible,
can be explored by the concerned authorities. The submission made to
merge the two examinations, namely, to be conducted on 4th October, G
2020 with the examination scheduled for 2021, however, did not find
favour by this Court.
10. The relevant part of the order dated 30th September, 2020 is
extracted as under:-
H
214 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.
A “(iv) The fourth point raised before us is that some of the
candidates may be giving last attempt and also likely to become
age-barred for the next examination, and if such candidates are
unable to appear in the examination due to Covid-19 pandemic
situation, it would cause great prejudice to them.
B In this regard, we have impressed upon Mr. S.V. Raju, learned
Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Ministry of Home
Affairs (MHA), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW)
and Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to explore the
possibility of providing one more attempt to such candidates with
corresponding extension of age limit. He has agreed to convey
C the sentiments of the Court to all concerned and to take a formal
decision thereon expeditiously.”
11. The fact is that all the writ petitioners/intervenors appeared in
the preliminary examination held on 4th October, 2020 which was
conducted in 74 cities. During the course of arguments, following
D information was brought to the notice of this Court:-
-Number of candidates who enrolled for the Examination 2020 -
10,56,835.
-Number of candidates who appeared on 4th October, 2020-
E 4,86,952.
-Number of last attempt candidates who appeared for Examination
2020 and have not attained age bar for 2021- 3863
-Number of last attempt candidates who appeared in Examination
2020 and would reach age bar for CSE 2021- 2236
F
-Candidates having last attempt in terms of age bar but did not
appear- 4237
-Combined effect of last attempt appeared : 3863 + 2236 = 6099
which comes to around 1.25% of candidates who appeared for
the examination.
G
-Combined effect of candidates who appeared and non-appeared
and who require relaxation for 2021, i.e. total = 3863+2236+4237
= 10,336 which comes to 0.97% of total candidates who enrolled
for Examination, 2020.
H
RACHNA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 215
[AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
12. When the present petitioners/intervenors failed to qualify in A
the preliminary examination held on 4th October, 2020 by the Commission,
they approached this Court by filing of the instant writ petition, and this
Court took note of the fact that in the light of the order passed in the
earlier proceedings dated 30th September, 2020, the decision of the
competent authority to fulfil the legitimate aspirations of the candidates
B
was still pending with the authority. During the pendency of the writ
petition in deference to this Court, a decision was taken by the 1st
respondent and placed for perusal dated 5th February, 2021 in which it
was agreed in principle to give one time restricted relaxation, limited to
CSE 2021 to only those candidates who appeared in Examination 2020
as their last permissible attempt and otherwise are not age-barred from C
appearing in CSE 2021, and no relaxation to the candidates will be given
who have not exhausted their permissible number of attempts or to those
candidates who are otherwise age-barred from appearing in CSE 2021.
The extract of the decision which was placed on record dated 5th
February, 2021 is reproduced hereunder:-
D
“As per the suggestion of this Hon’ble Court, the Union of India
is agreeable for the following ex-gratia, one-time, restricted
relaxation to be granted to the prospective candidates, subject to
the same being part of a consent order, disposing off the petition.
The conditions, agreeable to the Respondent, are as under:
E
1. Relaxation, only to the extent of providing one extra attempt
for Civil Service Examination (CSE), specifically limited to
CSE-2021, may be granted to only those candidates who
appeared for CSE-2020 as their last permissible attempt and
are otherwise not age-barred from appearing in CSE-2021.
F
2. No relaxation shall be granted for CSE-2021 to those
candidates who have not exhausted their permissible number
of attempts or to those candidates who are otherwise age-
barred from appearing in CSE-2021 as per the prescribed age
limits of different categories, or to any other candidate for any
other reason whatsoever. G
3. This relaxation for the candidates and to the extent as
prescribed above, shall be a one-time relaxation only and shall
apply only for appearing in CSE-2021 and shall not be treated
as a precedent.
H
216 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.
A 4. The relaxation provided at Point 1, shall not create any vested
right whatsoever or any other purported right on ground of
parity or otherwise, in favour of any other set/class of candidates
at any time in the future.”
Submissions of the parties
B 13. The main thrust of submission of learned counsel for the
petitioners is that the sudden and strict lockdown due to unprecedented
pandemic in March, 2020 had made a large disruption in the life of the
common man and the measures adopted led to difficulties and
impediments in the preparation of the Examination 2020 for many aspirants
C and the Government failed to take any policy decision for the last
attemptees before holding Examination 2020 to enable them to take an
appropriate/suitable decision and noticing precedence from the earlier
policy of 1st respondent to grant an extra attempt to last-attemptees in
the event causing widespread hardships left with no choice except to
appear in the examination even though they did not have an adequate
D opportunity and infrastructure and they were left out blinded with
uncertainty.
14. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners
are placed in the disadvantageous position with the onset of the pandemic
and due to the unprecedented measures imposed in the wake thereof.
E That apart, candidates working in essential services did not have the
benefit of seeking leave or claiming exemption from duty/overtime duty
looking to the nature of their services and in the light of invocation of
The Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1968 and The Disaster
Management Act, 2005. There is no benefit accruing to persons in
F essential services and public employment, consequent to the unlock
guidelines.
15. Learned counsel further submits that denial of an additional
attempt to the petitioners will make them to suffer serious discrimination
amongst who have not faced such hurdles as being faced by the
G petitioners in their preparation during the unprecedented pandemic. While
others had a choice of leaving the Examination 2020, while taking care
of their health, the last attemptees particularly in terms of age, were left
with no choice and had to sit for the exam despite the lack of opportunity
to prepare which is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution
of India.
H
RACHNA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 217
[AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
16. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners were A
deprived of their basic facilities for preparation in view of the innumerable,
inevitable circumstances suffered by them due to Covid-19 pandemic,
which prevailed in the entire country during the crucial period of their
preparation and even on the date of examination, but the impact may not
be uniform on all the participants and at least to those who are essential
B
service providers and such candidates deserve one more attempt when
they virtually lost for unavoidable circumstances their last attempt in
2020 and there are past precedents to grant of extra attempt in addition
to age relaxation for such years when UPSC Civil Services
Examinations’ aspirants faced hardships due to various reasons.
17. Learned counsel for the intervenors in addition further C
submitted that the discretion exercised by the 1st respondent dated 5th
February, 2021 to grant one time relaxation limited to only those candidates
who appeared for Examination 2020 as their last permissible attempt
and otherwise not age-bared from appearing in CSE 2021 with no
relaxation to the candidates who have not exhausted their permissible D
number of attempts or to those candidates who are otherwise age-barred
from appearing in CSE 2021 is not a rational decision and no such
classification could be made amongst the group of candidates who had
participated in Examination 2020 as a last attempt and are debarred to
appear in CSE 2021 because of the attempt being exhausted or having
crossed the upper age limit and it was expected from the 1st respondent E
to take a holistic view of the situation and grant one time relaxation to all
the candidates who had participated in Examination 2020 regardless of
the fact whether one has availed all the attempts or crossed the age
barrier disqualifying to appear in CSE 2021.
18. Learned counsel for intervenors further submits that the F
candidates who appeared in Examination 2020 by and large are affected
because of unprecedented pandemic and they were unable to prepare
themselves to appear in the examination due to various impediments
which came in front of them of which adequate reasons have been
furnished to this Court. In the given circumstances, at least taking a G
lenient and a holistic view of the matter, this Court may exercise its
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution granting one time
relaxation to the candidates who appeared in Examination 2020 with
one additional attempt regardless of the fact whether one has exhausted
the number of attempts or crossed the upper age limit as prescribed
H
218 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.
A under the Rules 2020 and it does not affect either the integrity of the
examination or any restriction on the prospective participants of CSE
2021 and to those who have already availed the attempts. All hopes of
the candidates remain in the last attempt but that had gone in vain because
of the unprecedented situation which came in front of them and that
was the only reason for which they have not been able to put their full
B
potential to qualify the Examination 2020.
19. Per contra, counter affidavits have been filed by the
respondents in their defence and it has been stated that the syllabus for
the preliminary examination has not been changed since 2015 and
examination of this nature is not possible for a candidate to prepare at
C the last moment and it needs a lot of planning, spanning of a number of
going through this preparation. Entry age of candidates is 21 years and
exit age for general candidates is 32 years. Relaxations/upper age limits
are available to candidates who appear in certain categories of vertical/
horizontal reservations. Hence, for general candidates there is a time of
D 11 years if they would be able to start preparing at the age of 21. After
the process was initiated pursuant to Rules 2020, as per the scheme, the
examination was scheduled for 31st May, 2020. There was a clear time
of three and a half months and by the time candidate appeared in their
last attempt, they would have a lot of experience so it could easily be
inferred that they have consumed sufficient time to prepare for the
E preliminary examination as no change in the syllabus has been given
effect to after the year 2015 but taking note of the unprecedented situation
of Covid-19 pandemic, the policy decision was taken by the Commission
to defer the examination and on 5th June 2020, it was declared that the
examination is to be scheduled on 4th October, 2020. Therefore, instead
F of three months which is the requirement under the scheme of rules,
candidates got almost five additional months (i.e. eight months) to prepare
for the Examination 2020 and to compensate the hardships caused by
Covid-19 pandemic, different modalities were adopted by the respondent.
So far as the demand made by the petitioners for extra attempt or extra
year is concerned, it has been specifically stated that giving of an extra
G attempt or the year would result in hardships being caused to the
candidates who are appearing for the CSE 2021 and that apart an
additional attempt has been demanded by the petitioners who are the
last attempters or who have crossed the age bar.
20. According to the learned counsel, that would result in
H discrimination for the reason that all attemptees irrespective of the nature
RACHNA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 219
[AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
of attempt (i.e., 1st, 2nd etc.) must have suffered during this Covid-19 A
pandemic and hence the consideration of giving an additional attempt to
only last attemptees would be discriminatory. At the same time, such of
the successful candidates can also complain but for Covid-19, their
rankings in the list of successful candidates would have been much higher,
therefore, they should also be given an additional chance. Similar
B
reasoning would apply as far as the upper age is concerned and so far
as the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners are
concerned, these are without prejudice to the main contention that they
are not entitled for relaxation as prayed for.
21. It has been further stated that the first national lockdown came
into force on 25th March, 2020, i.e., after one and a half month of the C
notice of examination published on 12th February 2020. From 1st June,
2020, gradual unlocking of the lockdown had started on monthly basis
and the preliminary examination was held on 4th October, 2020 when
the unlock guidelines 5.0 were in force. To meet out the bone of contention
of the petitioners that there are precedents for granting relaxation on D
earlier occasions is concerned, it has been stated that these are the
policy decisions taken by the executive in a particular facts and
circumstances and the present decision has to be tested independently
in the given circumstances, which has no relativity or comparison.
22. It has also been stated that the candidates who had appeared E
in the examination had accepted the rules of the Examination 2020 and
now having appeared and failed, they cannot be permitted to approbate
and reprobate in the same breath after they had failed in the Examination
2020. The submission may not hold good for the reason that their prayer
is to grant additional attempt to appear in CSE 2021 and the petitioners
have not questioned the procedure of selection held of Preliminary F
Examination 2020, deserves rejection.
23. The 2nd respondent (UPSC) has also filed its counter affidavit
and it has been stated that due to prevailing conditions in the country in
the year 2020 on account of Covid-19 pandemic, several decisions were
taken by the Commission to reschedule the examinations as a matter of G
fact, no examination was held during the period of lockdown. The
resumption of examinations started with the NDA & NA Examination
(I) & (II) on 6th September, 2020 and apart from Examination 2020,
following are the examinations and recruitment tests held by the
Commission during the period 6th September, 2020 to 20th December, H
2020:-
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.
A Sl. No. Name of Date of Number of Number of
Examination Examination candidates candidates
applied appeared
1 NDA/ NA Exam (I) & 06.09.2020 530185 240445
(II)
2 Civil Services (Pre) 04.10.2020 1040060 482770
Exam
B 3 Indian Economic 16-18 Oct, 2020 10458 1461
Service
4 Indian Statistical 16-18 Oct, 2020 12090 1753
Service Exam
Combined 17-18 Oct, 2020 720 619
5
Geoscientist (Main)
Exam
6 Engineer ing Services 10.10.2020 2263 1955
C (Main) Exam
7 Combined Medical 22.10.2020 43120 20213
Services Exam
8 Combined D efence 08.11.2020 234343 118250
Services Exam-II
9 Central Armed Police 20.12.2020 296066 89946
Forces Exam
D 10 CBRTs 20.12.2020 26988 14250
Total 2196293 971662
24. Learned counsel for the Commission submits that although
the decision has to be taken by the 1st respondent in meeting out the
prayer made by the writ petitioners but so far as the 2nd respondent
E (UPSC) is concerned, all effective measures were adopted in holding
the examinations/recruitment tests of various Central Services during
the said period and indulgence which has been prayed for by the petitioners
appeared in Examination 2020, in the given circumstances, of which the
details have been furnished need no further indulgence by this Court.
F Analysis
25. We have heard Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioners; Mr. S.V. Raju, learned Additional Solicitor
General and Mr. Naresh Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for the
respondents; Mr. P.V. Narasimha and Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned senior
G counsel appearing for the intervenors and with their assistance perused
the material available on record.
“The question that emerges for our consideration is that
whether the petitioners/intervenors and other similarly placed
candidates are entitled to another/additional chance for CSE
H
RACHNA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 221
[AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
2021 on account of the unprecedented Covid-19 pandemic A
which as alleged has deprived them from effectively
participating in the Examination 2020”.
26. There is no doubt that for India or for rest of the world, Covid-
19 has been a disaster of unprecedented proportions. The crisis of Covid-
19 pandemic has provided the sternest test for disaster management B
response in most countries, including India. Due to unprecedented spread
of the virus, the world had gone into a virtual lockdown as several
countries initiated strict screening of potential cases introduced in their
territory. Disasters are testing times for the institutions and individuals,
processes and procedures, and policies and their implementation
mechanisms. We can take judicial notice that when Covid-19 struck C
India, the country already had in place legal and administrative instruments
to empower and enable the State to contain and manage the several
crisis that would arise from the pandemic. Two of the most legal
instruments are the Distaster Management Act, 2005 and the Epidemic
Diseases Act, 1897 amended in the year 2020. D
27. The World Health Organization(WHO) has declared it as a
global pandemic. Not only that but because of its rampant spread,
countries were forced to stop international traveling as well as locked up
themselves. Also, the lockdown has been recognised at the given point
of time as the only method to control the spread of the pandemic and E
almost every country has adopted this method.
28. On 25th March, 2020, the Disaster Management Act 2005(DM
Act) was invoked in India for the first time since it was passed almost a
month and a half ago, to tackle the Covid-19 pandemic that was then in
its initial stages of spreading. The National Disaster Management F
Authority(NDMA) which was created by the Ministry of Home
Affairs(MHA) in pursuance of the Disaster Management Act 2005,
issued a notification dated 24th March, 2020 under Section 6(2)(i) of the
DM Act. The order directed the ministries and departments of
Government of India and State Governments along with State Disaster
Management Authorities to take measures for “ensuring social distancing G
so as to prevent the spread of Covid-19 in the country”.
29. In the early phases of this spread of Covid-19 pandemic, the
response attempted to control the ingress of the virus in our country
through border control, screening of persons entering the country, follow-
H
222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.
A up surveillance and contract tracing. This was followed by series of
countrywide lockdown measures: Lockdown 1 (25th March, 2020 to 15th
April, 2020), Lockdown 2 (16th April, 2020 to 3rd May, 2020) and
Lockdown 3 and 4 (4th May, 2020 to 17th May, 2020 and then through
May 31st). Instituted and publicized by the Central Government under
the Disaster Management Act 2005, these lockdowns varied in scope
B
and nature, depending on the situation on the ground.
30. Despite that Covid-19 pandemic has affected the livelihood of
the common man at all levels, be it a level of education system, from
pre-school to tertiary education. Different countries introduced various
policies in meeting out the widespread socio-economic implications but
C the Covid-19 pandemic has left its footprints for us to learn from the
unprecedented situation, which everyone has come across and suddenly
changed the lifestyle of every individual in the society, his way of working,
from social security to individual human rights, from macro economy to
household income and has made us more stronger to face, if any difficult
D situation arises in future and this is what by experience we learn. There
is an old saying “there is good in every evil”. Still life has to move on in
all situations, and this is what this country has faced, but resiliently fought
back this unprecedented situation and the economy and life of the common
man is on the path towards normalcy in a short period of time than
expected.
E
31. While reverting to the facts of the instant case of the
petitioners, what is prayed by them in the first blush appears to be
attractive but it lacks legal strength and foundation for various reasons.
32. The scheme of Rules 2020 of which a detailed reference has
F been made and Rules 4 & 6 in particular, clearly stipulate that the entry
age to participate in this competition is 21 years and the exit age for
general candidates is 32 years and at least each candidate gets minimum
11 years to participate in the competitive examination, i.e., CSE, in the
instant case. For those who claim reservation vertical/ horizontal, they
have numerous/unlimited chances and are also entitled for age relaxations.
G Thus, the scheme takes note in providing adequate opportunities to the
candidates to participate in this competitive examination at all levels. It
may further be noticed that under Rule 6 of Rules 2020, there is a clear
mandate that age limit prescribed in no case can be relaxed subject to
the relaxations which have been enumerated for various categories. So
H far as the candidates who appear in the general category and have
RACHNA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 223
[AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
crossed the age of 32 years, no discretion is left with the authority to A
grant any relaxation in upper age limit prescribed for the candidates
appeared in the instant Examination 2020.
33. The syllabus of the preliminary examination has not changed
since 2015 and after the Rules 2020 were notified by the 1st respondent
for Civil Services Exam 2020, the notice, in the first instance, was published B
on 12th February 2020 and the scheduled date of the examination was
fixed on 31st May, 2020 but because of the unprecedented situation of
Covid-19 pandemic, the Commission took a policy decision to defer the
examination and in the changed situation, after there was a relaxation in
the lockdown, ultimately on 5th June, 2020 took a decision to hold the
examination on 4th October 2020 and, therefore, instead of three months, C
the candidates got additional five months (i.e. eight months) to which
one ordinarily can prepare for appearing in the examination in terms of
the scheme of Rules 2020.
34. Under the scheme of Rules 2020, mere filling up of the form
is not sufficient to avail an attempt. If someone appeared in either of the D
paper of the preliminary examination, that was considered to be an
attempt availed by the candidate and, in the given situation, after the
application form was filled, the candidates who wanted to withdraw
their application form at the later stage because of the Covid-19
pandemic, the commission took a policy decision to open the window for E
the second time, which in the ordinary course is not available under the
scheme of rules, for the candidates who intended to withdraw their
application from 1 st August, 2020 to 8 th August, 2020. Since the
examination was scheduled for 4th October, 2020 only those candidates
were left who were mentally prepared to appear and willing to avail an
opportunity of appearing in the Examination 2020 and after appearing in F
the examination, when they could not qualify, it has given a way to the
present litigation on the specious ground of Covid-19 pandemic that they
were unable to effectively participate in the process of selection which
has been initiated by the Commission in holding preliminary examination
on 4th October, 2020. G
35. This court cannot lose sight of the fact that apart from the
present Examination 2020, it has been brought to the notice of this Court
that remedial measures were adopted for the candidates who had
participated in the various examinations/recruitment tests held for Central
services by the Commission at the given point of time during the Covid H
224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.
A 19 pandemic and apart from that, the State Commissions/recruiting
agencies must have conducted their examinations/recruitment tests for
various services and merely because the present petitioners made a
complaint to this Court, cannot be taken into isolation for the purpose of
seeking additional chance/attempt in the backdrop of Covid-19 pandemic,
which has been faced by not only the candidates appeared in Examination
B
2020 but by the candidates appeared in the various examinations/
recruitment tests held by the State Commissions or by other recruiting
agencies and by and large, every member of the society in one way or
the other but that does not in any manner give legitimate right to the
petitioners to claim additional benefit/attempt which is otherwise not
C permissible under the scheme of Rules 2020.
36. So far as the instant case is concerned, there are limited
attempts for the candidates who appeared in the general category and
the scheme of Rules 2020 does not provide any discretion to the 1st
respondent to grant relaxation either in attempt or in age and any exercise
D of discretion which does not vest with the 1st respondent, if exercised,
may go in contravention to the scheme of Rules 2020.
37. Taking note of the order of this Court dated 30th September,
2020 passed in Writ Petition(Civil) No. 1012 of 2020 in the earlier
proceedings, this Court has shown some sympathy for the candidates
E who were having their last attempt and were also likely to become age
barred for next examination, if any indulgence could be shown to them.
In compliance of the order of this Court, the 1st respondent has made
endeavour to find out a way which is possible to give solace to such
candidates and placed it before this Court that too with reservation that
there is a possibility in providing one extra attempt for the candidates
F who had availed the last and final attempt in Examination 2020 provided
they are within their respective age brackets as provided under Rule 6
of the Rules 2020. After the proposal was placed on record, even the
petitioners/intervenors inter se made their submission to the Court that
the proposal which has been placed by the 1st respondent for
G consideration of this Court according to them is discriminatory and is in
violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.
38. We do find substance in what being urged by learned counsel
for the petitioners inter se in questioning the decision placed by 1 st
respondent for our consideration. If an additional attempt remains
H restricted to the last attemptees for the reason that they had suffered
RACHNA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 225
[AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
during Covid 19 pandemic, all attemptees irrespective of the nature of A
attempt (i.e. 1st, 2nd etc.) who appeared in Examination 2020 must have
faced the same consequences as being faced by the writ petitioners and
each one of them have suffered in one way or the other during the
Covid-19 pandemic. At the same time, this reasoning would equally apply
to those who have crossed the upper age barrier. More so, when no
B
discretion is left with the 1st respondent to grant relaxation in the age
bracket to the candidates other than provided under Rule 6 of the scheme
of Rules 2020 which indeed the present petitioners are not entitled to
claim as a matter of right and that apart, those who have withdrawn
their forms either because of lack of preparation or because of some
personal reasons but have crossed the upper age limit to appear in CSE C
2021, they would also be equally entitled to claim and no distinction could
be made whether the candidate has appeared in the Examination 2020
and availed the last attempt or attempts is still available at his disposal or
has crossed the upper age limit.
39. We do find substance that any concession either in attempt or D
age is not available under the scheme of Rules 2020, at the same time,
proposal which has been placed by the 1st respondent before us apart
from complaint made inter se by the petitioners/intervenors themselves
of being discriminatory in character, 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 E
being in contravention to the rules, it may be discriminatory and it is
advisable not to exercise discretion in implementing what being proposed
by the 1st respondent in compliance of the order of this Court dated 30th
September, 2020.
40. The thrust of submission of learned counsel for the petitioners F
was that discretion has been exercised by the respondent as a matter of
policy in the earlier selections and the present petitioners have a legitimate
expectation that the Government must exercise its discretion to overcome
the unprecedented situation which the petitioners have faced while
appearing in the Examination 2020 and their right of fair consideration G
and effective participation in the selection process has been denied to
them which is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
41. The submission, in our view, is without substance 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 H
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.
A facts and circumstances at the given point of time and has to be tested
independently in the circumstances in which it has been exercised by
the competent authority or the 1st respondent as in the instant case.
42. Their further grievance that there is always a change in the
upper age limit and number of attempts in different spell and further
B emphasis was that in the year 2015, the 1st respondent allowed one
more attempt in the Civil Service Examination 2015 for the candidates
who appeared in CSE 2011. Although the justification has been tendered
by the respondents in their response that as there was a substantial
change in the pattern of Civil Service (Preliminary) Examination 2011, in
the given circumstances, the 1st respondent in its wisdom considered it
C appropriate to grant one more attempt in Civil Service Examination, 2015
to such candidates who appeared in Civil Service Examination, 2011
either due to reaching upper age limit or due to exhausting of number of
attempts and that was the given situation which prevailed upon the 1st
respondent in taking a policy decision in granting permission but that
D cannot be made to be the basis or a foundation for the petitioners to site
as a precedent in claiming to seek one additional attempt as a matter of
right which is not permissible under the scheme of Rules 2020 or with
the aid of Article 14 of the Constitution to take a call in meeting out the
difficulties which have been faced as alleged in the given circumstance.
E 43. It is the settled principle of law that policy decisions are open
for judicial review by this Court for a very limited purpose and this Court
can interfere into the realm of public policy so framed if it is either
absolutely capricious, totally arbitrary or not informed of reasons and
has been considered by this Court in Union of India and Others Vs.
M. Selvakumar and Another 2017(3) SCC 504. The relevant portion
F is as under:-
“47. There is one more reason due to which we are unable to
subscribe to the view taken by the Madras High Court and Delhi
High Court. The horizontal reservation and relaxation for Physically
Handicapped Category candidates for Civil Services Examination,
G is a matter of Governmental policy and the Government after
considering the relevant materials has extended relaxation and
concessions to the Physically Handicapped candidates belonging
to the Reserved Category as well as General Category. It is not in
the domain of the courts to embark upon an inquiry as to whether
H a particular public policy is wise and acceptable or whether better
RACHNA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. 227
[AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
policy could be evolved. The Court can only interfere if the policy A
framed is absolutely capricious and non-informed by reasons, or
totally arbitrary, offending the basic requirement of Article 14 of
the Constitution.”
(Emphasis supplied)
44. It was the case where the number of attempts granted to B
physically handicapped persons were increased from 4 to 7 in the UPSC-
CSE examination and the candidates belonging to the OBC had moved
this Court requesting for an increase of the number of attempts from 7
to 10 that is an additional 3 attempts as it was done in the case of the
physically handicapped category but that was repelled by this Court for C
the reasons indicated above.
45. Judicial review of a policy decision and to issue mandamus to
frame policy in a particular manner are absolutely different. It is within
the realm of the executive to take a policy decision based on the prevailing
circumstances for better administration and in meeting out the exigencies D
but at the same time, it is not within the domain of the Courts to legislate.
The Courts do interpret the laws and in such an interpretation, certain
creative process is involved. The Courts have the jurisdiction to declare
the law as unconstitutional. That too, where it is called for. The Court is
called upon to consider the validity of a policy decision only when a
challenge is made that such policy decision infringes fundamental rights E
guaranteed by the Constitution or any other statutory right. Merely
because as a matter of policy, if the 1st respondent has granted relaxation
in the past for the reason that there was a change in the examination
pattern/syllabus and in the given situation, had considered to be an
impediment for the participant in the Civil Service Examination, no F
assistance can be claimed by the petitioners in seeking mandamus to the
1st respondent to come out with a policy granting relaxation to the
participants who had availed a final and last attempt or have crossed the
upper age by appearing in the Examination 2020 as a matter of right.
46. It has been brought to our notice that not only the petitioners/ G
intervenors before this Court, but there are large number of candidates
who appeared in the various examinations in the year 2020 during Covid
19 pandemic and everyone must have faced some constraints/
impediments/inconvenience in one way or the other and this Court can
take a judicial notice that these petitioners have appeared in the same
pattern of examination in the previous years since the year 2015 and H
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2021] 2 S.C.R.
A 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 future and
we find no substance in either of the submissions which has been made
before us.
B 47. The data furnished to this Court by the Commission clearly
indicate that various selections have been held by the Commission for
Central Services in the year 2020 during Covid 19 pandemic and selections
must have been held by State Commissions and other recruiting agencies,
if this Court shows indulgence to few who had participated in the
Examination 2020, it will set down a precedent and also have cascading
C effect on examinations in other streams, for which we are dissuaded to
exercise plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.
48. We, however, make it clear that this decision would not restrict
the 1st respondent or the executive in exercising its discretion in meeting
out the nature of difficulties as being projected to this Court, if come
D across in future in dealing with the situation, if required.
49. Consequently, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.
50. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
E Nidhi Jain Writ petition dismissed.
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Civil Services Examination"Sign in to search