2021 (2) TMI 1304 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court rejects extra attempts request for Civil Services Exam 2021 amid pandemic

Rachna & Ors. Versus Union of India & Anr.

The Supreme Court dismissed the petition seeking an additional attempt in the Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The ... Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2020 - Seeking 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 - Articles 14, 19, 29 and 21 of the Constitution of India - grant of extra attempts to last attemptees who missed their attempts due to sudden and strict lockdown due to unprecedented pandemic in March, 2020 sudden and strict lockdown due to unprecedented pandemic in March, 2020. 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 which as alleged has deprived them from effectively participating in the Examination 2020? HELD THAT:- 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 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 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 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 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. 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 of discretion which does not vest with the 1st respondent, if exercised, may go in contravention to the scheme of Rules 2020. 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 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 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 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. The thrust of submission of learned counsel for the petitioners 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 and effective participation in the selection process has been denied to them which is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 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 effect on examinations in other streams, for which we are dissuaded to exercise plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution. Petition dismissed. Issues Involved:1. Request for an additional attempt in the Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2021 due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.2. Alleged violation of Articles 14, 19, 29, and 21 of the Constitution of India.3. Discrimination against candidates who exhausted their attempts or crossed the age limit.4. Judicial review of policy decisions and the scope of mandamus.Detailed Analysis:1. Request for an Additional Attempt in CSE 2021:The petitioners sought an additional attempt at the CSE 2021 due to the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic, which they claimed disrupted their preparation for the CSE 2020. The Supreme Court noted that the Civil Services Examination rules (Rules 2020) provide a complete code for eligibility, including the number of attempts and age limits. The Court acknowledged the disruption caused by the pandemic but emphasized that the examination schedule was adjusted, providing candidates with additional preparation time from May to October 2020.2. Alleged Violation of Constitutional Rights:The petitioners argued that the denial of an additional attempt violated their rights under Articles 14 (Equality before the law), 19 (Protection of certain rights regarding freedom of speech, etc.), 29 (Protection of interests of minorities), and 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of the Constitution. The Court found that the existing rules provided adequate opportunities for candidates, including age relaxations for reserved categories. The Court held that the petitioners' claims lacked legal strength and foundation, as the rules did not permit any discretion to grant additional attempts or age relaxation for general category candidates.3. Discrimination Against Certain Candidates:The petitioners claimed discrimination as the government's decision on February 5, 2021, allowed an additional attempt only for candidates who appeared for CSE 2020 as their last permissible attempt and were not age-barred for CSE 2021. The Court agreed that this decision could be seen as discriminatory since all candidates faced similar challenges due to the pandemic. However, the Court emphasized that the rules did not permit relaxation in attempts or age limits, and granting such relaxation would contravene the established rules.4. Judicial Review of Policy Decisions:The Supreme Court reiterated that judicial review of policy decisions is limited to cases where the policy is capricious, arbitrary, or not informed by reason. The Court cited *Union of India and Others Vs. M. Selvakumar and Another*, stating that it is not within the Court's domain to dictate policy decisions unless they violate fundamental rights. The Court found no basis to mandate the government to grant an additional attempt, as the petitioners' situation did not warrant such intervention.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioners were not entitled to an additional attempt in CSE 2021. The Court emphasized that the rules provided sufficient opportunities and that any relaxation not permitted by the rules would be discriminatory and contravene the established examination framework. The Court also clarified that its decision does not preclude the executive from exercising discretion in future cases if necessary.