CA exam rescheduling petition dismissed as 4 lakh candidates cannot be inconvenienced for individual hardships during elections

The Delhi HC dismissed a petition seeking rescheduling of CA Intermediate and Final examinations from May 2024 to June 2024 due to general elections. The court held that 4,36,246 candidates cannot be inconvenienced for individual hardships. The examination authority had already ensured no exams were scheduled on election dates (7th and 13th May) or immediately prior. The court found no Article 14 violation as candidates in election years versus non-election years are not similarly situated. The petition lacked substance and was dismissed.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Rescheduling of CA Intermediate and Final Examinations due to the forthcoming Lok Sabha General Elections.
2. Allowing students who miss a particular paper to retake only that paper instead of the entire examination.
3. Alleged violation of Articles 14, 19(1)(g), 21, and 326 of the Constitution of India.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Rescheduling of CA Intermediate and Final Examinations:
The petitioners sought the rescheduling of the CA Intermediate and Final Examinations to the second week of June 2024 due to the forthcoming Lok Sabha General Elections. They argued that other institutions, including the UPSC, had postponed examinations due to the elections, creating a legitimate expectation for similar action. They also contended that conducting exams during the election period would impact their right to vote under Article 326 of the Constitution and would create logistical difficulties, especially for students with disabilities and female candidates.

The respondent countered that rescheduling the exams would disrupt the entire examination process for 4,36,246 candidates, of whom only 27 had petitioned. They emphasized that no exams were scheduled on election days or the day before, allowing candidates to vote and return in time for their exams. The court agreed with the respondent, noting that the examination schedule had been carefully planned to avoid conflict with election dates, and it was the candidates' responsibility to adjust their schedules accordingly.

2. Allowing Students to Retake Only Missed Papers:
The petitioners alternatively requested that students who miss a paper due to circumstances beyond their control should be allowed to retake only that paper instead of the entire examination. The court rejected this request, stating that it cannot rework the examination rules, which require students to retake the entire examination if they miss any paper.

3. Alleged Violation of Constitutional Rights:
- Article 14 (Right to Equality): The petitioners argued that conducting exams during the election period would create inequality between candidates from different locations and those who took exams in non-election years. The court dismissed this argument, stating that Article 14 forbids discrimination among equals, not unequals, and the comparison between candidates in election years and non-election years is not valid.
- Article 19(1)(g) (Right to Practice Profession): The petitioners claimed that the exam schedule would violate their right to practice a profession of their choice. The court found no merit in this argument, noting that the ability to undertake the exams was not hindered by the election schedule.
- Article 21 (Right to Life): The petitioners expressed concerns about potential violence during elections, affecting their safety. The court dismissed these concerns as speculative and unfounded, asserting confidence in the security arrangements during elections.
- Article 326 (Right to Vote): The court noted that the examination schedule did not conflict with the election dates, allowing candidates to vote and return for their exams.

Conclusion:
The court found no merit in the petitioners' arguments and dismissed the petition, emphasizing that the examination schedule had been carefully planned to avoid conflicts with election dates and that individual hardships could not justify disrupting the entire examination process. The court also stated that the petitioners' concerns about potential violence and logistical difficulties were speculative and did not warrant rescheduling the exams. The court concluded that the petition was "completely bereft of substance" and dismissed it, allowing the examination schedule to remain unchanged. If the respondent decides to reschedule the exams of its own accord, this judgment will not act as a barrier.

---