RACHNA & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.

Citation: [2021] 2 S.C.R. 201 · Decided: 24-02-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

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 respondent-
Union 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 fr

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.