No vested right to extra exam attempts or age relaxation beyond the governing rules despite pandemic disruption.

The Supreme Court held that candidates had no enforceable right to an extra attempt or age relaxation in the Civil Services Examination beyond the governing scheme, which fixed entry and exit ages and limited relaxations to specified categories. The Covid-19 disruption did not create a legal entitlement to a fresh attempt, particularly where the examination had been deferred and additional opportunities were already granted. The Court also found that the proposed one-time relaxation could not be judicially expanded, as policy choices in competitive examinations are open to review only if arbitrary or capricious, and courts cannot direct a policy contrary to the rules.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioners were entitled to an additional attempt and corresponding age relaxation for Civil Services Examination 2021 on the ground of disruption caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, and whether the restricted one-time relaxation proposed by the executive was liable to be accepted.

Analysis: The examination scheme under the relevant rules fixed the entry and exit ages and prescribed the number of attempts, with only the enumerated category-wise relaxations. The Court held that general category candidates had no discretion-backed entitlement to an extra attempt or age relaxation beyond the scheme. It further held that the pandemic, though unprecedented, did not create a legal right in favour of the petitioners to claim a fresh attempt, especially when the examination had already been deferred, additional time was granted, and withdrawal opportunities were also reopened. The proposed relaxation limited to last-attempt candidates within age limits was found to be unsatisfactory and potentially discriminatory, because similarly placed candidates who had not exhausted attempts or who had crossed the age bar could also claim comparable hardship. The Court reiterated that policy choices are open to judicial review only when they are arbitrary, capricious, or unguided by reasons, and that the Court cannot mandate a policy contrary to the governing rules.

Conclusion: The petitioners had no enforceable right to an extra attempt or age relaxation, and the executive policy was not liable to be compelled or expanded by judicial direction.

Ratio Decidendi: Courts will not compel a policy relaxation in competitive examinations unless the impugned policy is shown to be arbitrary or capricious, and no candidate acquires a vested right to an additional attempt or age relaxation beyond the governing rules.

---