UPSC Civil Services Exam : Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Seeking Extra Attempt, Says ‘Let Govt Take a Call’

“Innumerable UPSC CSE 2020 aspirants were denied a fair and legitimate chance to give their final attempt. There are several categories of people who were being affected by the same. Some of the affected categories of candidates, inter alia, are: who were COVID positive on the date of the examination or slightly prior to it, who were residing at places declared as containment zones, who were serving the country as frontline workers, who got anxious and hence could not give the examinations properly due to non-compliance of social distancing norms, who were suffering from COVID-related comorbidities, etc.”

However, the bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Bela M. Trivedi refused to accept the impassioned appeals made by Senior Advocates Krishnan Venugopal, and Gopal Sankaranaryanan on behalf of the petitioners. Justice Rastogi said, “We have to draw a line somewhere. A possibility of relief was explored. But once this court has decided the issue on the subject matter, you cannot go on file writ petition after writ petition.”

This is not the first time this issue has been raised at the apex court. In 2021, a three-judge bench of which Justice Rastogi was a part, refused to issue directions to the centre and the commission to grant an extra attempt to aspirants who had exhausted their last attempt during the pandemic in Rachna v. Union of India, (2021) 5 SCC 638. Venugopal alleged on Monday that the court was not informed of “the correct position of the law” then. There were blatant falsification and misrepresentations on the part of the respondents, the senior counsel further claimed. “Now they use the Rachna verdict as a reason to not entertain the requests of the petitioners.”

Venugopal also highlighted that in a 2022 report, the Rajya Sabha’s Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice recommended, in no uncertain terms, that aspirants be compensated for the two years of the pandemic by being provided with an additional attempt or a relaxation of the upper age limit, whichever might be applicable, as a one-time measure. The union government has failed to accord any real consideration to the recommendations of the parliamentary committee, the senior counsel alleged. Justice Rastogi responded:

“Let government, as a matter of policy, take a call. Our orders will never come in the way of the government. But, if you want judicial review or scrutiny by this court, at some point, we have to draw the line. ”

In the course of the hearing, Justice Rastogi also attempted to impress on the counsel that the petitioners were free to pursue other career options. “I have a very small story for you,” Justice Rastogi began. “One of my clients was an IAS officer. For some reason, he was placed under suspension. But he was a brilliant guy. He took admission in IIM Ahmedabad, while under suspension. Then, he got a job in the United States. The fellow left the services and left for America. He lives there now. So, destiny had something in store for him.”

“This court control that destiny for these students,” Venugopal exclaimed. Sankaranarayanan added, “In fact, in the illustration you gave, this country lost out on an excellent candidate who could have served this country but left for the United States.”

However, despite the efforts of the two senior advocates, the bench refused to be swayed and ultimately dismissed the petition.

Last year, the parliamentary committee had recommended that on account of the ‘untold agony and insurmountable sufferings’ caused by the pandemic, the government ought to change its mind and sympathetically consider the demand of CSE aspirants and grant an extra attempt with correspondent age relaxation to all conditions. This recommendation was made keeping in view the “hardships faced by the student community during the first and second COVID-19 waves” and the fact that “the whole of India had come to a standstill, lives and livelihoods got disrupted and the student community was adversely affected”. On the strength of this recommendation, some affected students had approached the top court and a three-judge bench headed by Justice A.M. Khanwilkar had passed an order directing the appropriate authority to “re-examine the representation made by the petitioners and similarly placed persons afresh and take appropriate decision, as may be advised, within two weeks”.

The latest petition was filed by Supreme Court Advocate-on-Record Shivendra Singh, and the senior counsel were assisted by Advocate Shreeyash U. Lalit.

Case Title

Priti Bhagavan Unhawana & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. | Writ Petition (Civil) No. 179 of 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order