– The UPSC scheduled the Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2020 initially for May 31, 2020. This prestigious examination is a gateway for individuals aspiring to join the Indian Administrative Service, Indian Police Service, and other elite civil services.
– Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the examination faced postponements and was eventually conducted on October 4, 2020. The pandemic, declared a global health crisis by the World Health Organization, led to widespread disruptions in various sectors, including education and examination schedules.
– Lockdown measures were implemented across India, and a gradual unlocking process started from June 1, 2020. The unlock phases aimed to restore normalcy while mitigating the spread of the virus.
– Candidates who appeared in CSE 2020 accepted the rules of that examination, including the prescribed age limit, number of attempts, and other eligibility criteria. This acceptance formed the contractual basis between the candidates and the UPSC.
– The UPSC, in recognition of the challenges posed by the pandemic, provided a withdrawal window for candidates who faced difficulties during this period. This window allowed candidates to withdraw their applications, providing some flexibility in response to the exceptional circumstances.
2. ISSUES RAISED:
– Whether candidates who appeared in CSE 2020, faced challenges due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and subsequently failed, are entitled to an additional attempt in CSE 2021. The central question is whether the extraordinary circumstances of the pandemic warrant an exception to the established rules of the examination.
– Whether the UPSC’s decision to provide one extra attempt for the last attemptees, in compliance with the court’s order, is discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. This issue raises concerns about the fairness and equal treatment of candidates in the application of this policy.
3. CONTENTIONS:
Petitioners:
– The petitioners argued that the COVID-19 pandemic, characterized as a disaster of unprecedented proportions, significantly disrupted their preparation for CSE 2020. The crisis led to a virtual lockdown globally and imposed strict screening and travel restrictions.
– They contended that the extraordinary nature of the pandemic created circumstances beyond their control, impacting their ability to participate in CSE 2020 effectively. As a result, they sought relief in the form of an additional attempt in CSE 2021 to compensate for the challenges faced.
– The petitioners asserted that the right to fair consideration and effective participation in the selection process had been denied to them due to the exceptional circumstances of the pandemic. They argued for the recognition of their unique predicament and a corresponding adjustment to the rules.
UPSC:
– The UPSC emphasized that the rules of CSE 2020 were accepted voluntarily by the candidates when they chose to participate in the examination. This acceptance formed a contractual relationship, and candidates were expected to abide by the established rules, including the prescribed age limit and number of attempts.
– The commission argued that candidates were given an opportunity to withdraw their applications during the pandemic. The decision to provide a withdrawal window demonstrated a responsive approach to the challenges posed by COVID-19, allowing candidates to make informed choices based on their individual circumstances.
– The UPSC contended that the decision to provide one additional attempt was a policy choice made to address the concerns of the last attemptees who were on the verge of becoming age-barred for future examinations. This policy, while acknowledging the challenges, aimed to strike a balance between the interests of candidates and the need for a fair and consistent approach.
4. RATIONALE:
– The court, while acknowledging the severe impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, underscored the principle of legal sanctity attached to the rules and regulations governing competitive examinations. It highlighted that rules, once accepted by the candidates voluntarily, form a binding contract that sets the parameters for the examination process.
– The court, in its rationale, pointed out that the proposal to grant an additional attempt to last attemptees, while seemingly addressing the concerns of a specific group, raised potential issues of arbitrariness and discrimination. It highlighted that any relaxation, whether in attempts or age, must adhere to the established framework of the Rules 2020.
– The judgment emphasized the importance of a uniform and consistent approach in matters of examination policies. It underscored that a departure from established rules could set a precedent that might be difficult to reconcile in future examinations, potentially leading to a lack of uniformity and fairness.
– The court recognized that the COVID-19 pandemic presented unprecedented challenges. However, it stressed that the existing framework of the Rules 2020 did not provide the 1st respondent (UPSC) with the discretion to grant additional attempts or relaxation in age. In this context, any deviation from the rules would amount to an infringement on the sanctity of the examination process.
– The court, in its rationale, also considered the potential impact on candidates who withdrew their applications during the pandemic due to various reasons. Granting an additional attempt only to last attemptees might be perceived as unfair to those candidates who withdrew, as they could argue similar difficulties due to the pandemic.
– Moreover, the court highlighted the limited scope of judicial review when it comes to policy decisions. It reiterated that interference in policy matters is warranted only if the policy is found to be capricious, arbitrary, or devoid of any rationale. In this case, the court found that the UPSC’s policy decision, though subject to criticism, did not meet the threshold for judicial intervention.
– The court recognized the difference between judicial review of policy decisions and the legislative function. While the court has the authority to declare a law unconstitutional, policy decisions fall within the executive domain, and the judiciary’s role is circumscribed to ensure that policies adhere to constitutional principles.
– Importantly, the court’s rationale extended to emphasize the potential cascading effects on other examinations if exceptions were made for the candidates who appeared in CSE 2020. This consideration underscored the broader implications of any deviation from the established norms.
5. DEFECTS OF LAW:
– The court observed that the scheme of Rules 2020 did not permit discretion for additional attempts. Any deviation from these rules, even in response to exceptional circumstances, would undermine the established framework and create a potential precedent for future deviations.
– Notably, the court raised concerns about the proposed solution by the UPSC, providing an extra attempt for the last attemptees. This approach, while addressing the concerns of a specific group, could be perceived as discriminatory and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality.
6. INFERENCE:
– The court, after thorough consideration of the arguments presented, dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioners lacked legal grounds for claiming additional attempts. The decision emphasized the need to uphold the existing rules and regulations that govern competitive examinations.
– It underscored that policy decisions, especially those related to examinations, are subject to limited judicial review. While the court acknowledged the challenges posed by the pandemic, it reaffirmed the importance of adhering to the established legal framework.
– The court also emphasized that the dismissal of the petition should not restrict the UPSC or the executive in exercising discretion in the future if faced with similar difficulties. This acknowledgment leaves room for the executive to respond to unique circumstances while remaining within the confines of the existing legal framework.
Prasad Sorte
ILS Law college, Pune