# RACHNA & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR

- **Citation:** [2021] 2 S.C.R. 201
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2021-02-24
- **Bench:** A.M. Khanwilkar, Indu Malhotra, Ajay Rastogi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/rachna-ors-v-union-of-india-anr-34829
- **Pages:** 28

## Headnote

Constitution of India - Art. 32 - Writ petition under, by last
attemptee of the UPSE exam - Mandamus sought to 1st respondentUnion of India to extend one additional attempt 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 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
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
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,
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
on earlier occasions always depend on the facts and circumstances
at the given point of time - Administrative law - Policy decisions -
Judicial Review.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
202
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
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
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 4th October 2020 and,
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
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 instant 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. [Para 34][223-D-G]
1.3 This court cannot loose sight of the fact

## Text

_Characters 0–39,951 of 64,876. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39951 for what follows._

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
201
 [2021] 2 S.C.R. 201
201
RACHNA & ORS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No(s). 1410 of 2020)
FEBRUARY 24, 2021
[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 respondentUnion of India to extend one additional attempt 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 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
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
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,
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
on earlier occasions always depend on the facts and circumstances
at the given point of time - Administrative law - Policy decisions -
Judicial Review.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
202
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
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
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 4th October 2020 and,
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
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 instant 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. [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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
203
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 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 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 permissible under the scheme of Rules 2020.
[Para 35][223-G-H; 224-A-C]
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-CD]
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
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
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]
RACHNA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
204
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
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
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. [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
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
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
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
205
consideration and effective participation in the selection process
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
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
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
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 1st respondent in taking a policy decision in granting
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
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
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.
RACHNA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
206
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
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
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 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
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]
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
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
substance in either of the submissions made. [Para 46][227-GH; 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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
207
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 this Court is dissuaded
to exercise plenary powers under Art. 142 of the Constitution.
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
[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
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,
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.
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,
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
RACHNA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
208
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
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
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
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
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."
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 CommissionUPSC) and for the year 2020, the Ministry of Personnel, Public
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.
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
hereunder:-
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
209
"4. Every candidate appearing at the examination who is otherwise
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
RACHNA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
[AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
210
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
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;
(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
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 exservicemen including Commissioned Officers and ECOs/
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
misconduct or inefficiency; or
(b)
on account of physical disability attributable to
Military Service; or
(c)
on invalidment.
(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
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
with Benchmark Disabilities viz. (a) blindness and low
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
211
vision; (b) deaf and hard of hearing; (c) locomotor
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.
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
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
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
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
examination.
Note III:- The term Ex-servicemen will apply to the persons who
are defined as Ex-servicemen in the Ex-servicemen (Reemployment in Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979, as amended
from time to time.
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
RACHNA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
[AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
212
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
213
application, it could be withdrawn from 12th March, 2020 to 18th March,
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
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
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
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,
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
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,
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:-
RACHNA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
[AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
214
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
"(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.
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
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
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, 20204,86,952.
-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
-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.
-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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
215
12. When the present petitioners/intervenors failed to qualify in
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
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
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:-
"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:
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.
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 agebarred from appearing in CSE-2021 as per the prescribed age
limits of different categories, or to any other candidate for any
other reason whatsoever.
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.
RACHNA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
[AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
216
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
217
16. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners were
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
RACHNA & ORS. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
[AJAY RASTOGI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
218
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 2 S.C.R.
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
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
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
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
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
of three months which is the requirement under the scheme of rules,
candidates got almost five additional months (i.e.