RACHNA & ORS. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR. on 24 February 2021

[2021] 2 S.C.R. 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 lastattemptee of the UPSE exam – Mandamus sought to 1st respondent-Union of India to extend one additional attempt as they are beingbarred from attempting the examination in future on account ofexhausting of available attempts or on account of age bar subsequentto Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2020; and that due toCovid 19 pandemic, they could not effectively participate inExamination 2020 – Held: Such direction cannot be issued – Policydecisions are open for judicial review by this Court if it is eitherabsolutely capricious, totally arbitrary or not informed of reasons– Judicial review of a policy decision and to issue mandamus toframe policy in a particular manner are absolutely different –Executive can take a policy decision based on the prevailingcircumstances for better administration and in meeting out theexigencies but at the same time, it is not within the domain of theCourts to legislate – Court is called upon to consider the validity ofa policy decision only when a challenge is made that such policydecision infringes fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitutionor any other statutory right – Merely because as a matter of policy,if the 1st respondent had granted relaxation in the past for the reasonthat there was a change in the examination pattern/syllabus and inthe given situation, had considered to be an impediment for theparticipant in the CSE, no assistance can be claimed by thepetitioners in seeking mandamus to the 1st respondent as a matterof right – Policy decisions which had been taken by the executiveon earlier occasions always depend on the facts and circumstancesat the given point of time – Administrative law – Policy decisions –Judicial Review.

201

A

B

C

DEF

G

H

ADismissing the writ petition, the Court HELD: 1.1 The syllabus of the preliminary examination hasnot changed since 2015 and after the Rules for Competitiveexamination 2020 were notified by the 1[st] respondent for CivilServices Exam 2020, the notice, was published on 12.2.2020 andBthe scheduled date of the examination was fixed on 31[st] May,2020 but because of the unprecedented situation of Covid19pandemic, the Commission took a policy decision to defer theexamination and in the changed situation, after there was arelaxation in the lockdown, ultimately on 5[th] June, 2020 took adecision to hold the examination on 4[th] October 2020 and,Ctherefore, instead of three months, the candidates got additionalfive months (i.e. eight months) to which one ordinarily can preparefor appearing in the examination in terms of the scheme of Rules2020. [Para 33][223-A-D]

1.2 Under the scheme of Rules 2020, mere filling up of theDform is not sufficient to avail an attempt. If someone appeared ineither of the paper of the preliminary examination, that wasconsidered to be an attempt availed by the candidate and, in thegiven situation, after the application form was filled, the candidateswho wanted to withdraw their application form at the later stageEbecause of the Covid-19 pandemic, the commission took a policydecision to open the window for the second time, which in theordinary course is not available under the scheme of rules, forthe candidates who intended to withdraw their application from1[st] August, 2020 to 8[th] August, 2020. Since the examination wasscheduled for 4[th] October, 2020 only those candidates were leftFwho were mentally prepared to appear and willing to avail anopportunity of appearing in the Examination 2020 and afterappearing in the examination, when they could not qualify, it hasgiven a way to the instant litigation on the specious ground ofCovid-19 pandemic that they were unable to effectivelyGparticipate in the process of selection which has been initiatedby the Commission in holding preliminary examination on 4[th]October, 2020. [Para 34][223-D-G]

1.3 This court cannot loose sight of the fact that apart fromthe present Examination 2020, remedial measures were adopted H

for the candidates who had participated in the variousexaminations/recruitment tests held for Central services by theCommission at the given point of time during the Covid 19pandemic and apart from that, the State Commissions/recruitingagencies must have conducted their examinations/recruitmenttests for various services and merely because the presentpetitioners made a complaint to this Court, cannot be taken intoisolation for the purpose of seeking additional chance/attempt inthe backdrop of Covid-19 pandemic, which has been faced by notonly the candidates appeared in Examination 2020 but by thecandidates appeared in the various examinations/recruitmenttests held by the State Commissions or by other recruitingagencies and by and large, every member of the society in oneway or the other but that does not in any manner give legitimateright to the petitioners to claim additional benefit/attempt whichis 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 whoappeared in the general category and the scheme of Rules 2020does not provide any discretion to the 1[st] respondent to grantrelaxation either in attempt or in age and any exercise of discretionwhich does not vest with the 1[st] respondent, if exercised, may goin contravention to the scheme of Rules 2020. [Para 36][224-C-D]

1.5 Taking note of the order of this Court dated 30.9.2020passed in WP(C) No. 1012 of 2020 in the earlier proceedings,this Court has shown some sympathy for the candidates who werehaving their last attempt and were also likely to become agebarred for next examination, if any indulgence could be shown tothem. In compliance of the order of this Court, the 1[st] respondentmade endeavour to find out a way which is possible to give solaceto such candidates and placed it before this Court that too withreservation that there is a possibility in providing one extraattempt for the candidates who had availed the last and finalattempt in Examination 2020 provided they are within theirrespective age brackets as provided under Rule 6 of the Rules2020. [Para 37][224-D-F]

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

A1.6 If an additional attempt remains restricted to the lastattemptees for the reason that they had suffered during Covid 19pandemic, all attemptees irrespective of the nature of attempt(i.e. 1[st], 2[nd] etc.) who appeared in Examination 2020 must havefaced the same consequences as being faced by the writpetitioners and each one of them have suffered in one way or theBother during the Covid-19 pandemic. At the same time, thisreasoning would equally apply to those who have crossed theupper age barrier. More so, when no discretion is left with the1st respondent to grant relaxation in the age bracket to thecandidates other than provided under Rule 6 of the scheme ofCRules 2020 which indeed the present petitioners are not entitledto claim as a matter of right and that apart, those who havewithdrawn their forms either because of lack of preparation orbecause of some personal reasons but have crossed the upperage limit to appear in CSE 2021, they would also be equallyentitled to claim and no distinction could be made whether theDcandidate has appeared in the Examination 2020 and availed thelast attempt or attempts is still available at his disposal or hascrossed the upper age limit. [Para 38][224-H; 225-A-D]

1.7 Any concession either in attempt or age is not availableunder the scheme of Rules 2020, at the same time, proposal whichEhas been placed by the 1st respondent apart from complaint madeinter se by the petitioners/intervenors themselves of beingdiscriminatory in character, it is advisable to avoid this situationand any relaxation which is not permissible either in attempt orage under the scheme of Rules 2020 apart from being inFcontravention to the rules, it may be discriminatory and it isadvisable not to exercise discretion in implementing what beingproposed by the 1st respondent in compliance of the order ofthis Court dated 30th September, 2020. [Para 39][225-D-F]

1.8 The submission that discretion has been exercised byGthe respondent as a matter of policy in the earlier selections andthe present petitioners have a legitimate expectation that theGovernment must exercise its discretion to overcome theunprecedented situation which the petitioners have faced whileappearing in the Examination 2020 and their right of fair H

consideration and effective participation in the selection processhas been denied to them which is in violation of Arts. 14 and 21of the Constitution, is without substance for the reason that thepolicy decisions which had been taken by the executive on earlieroccasions of which a reference has been made always depend onthe facts and circumstances at the given point of time and has tobe tested independently in the circumstances in which it has beenexercised by the competent authority or the 1st respondent as inthe instant case. [Para 40-41][225-F-H; 226-A-B]

1.9 It was submitted that there is always a change in theupper age limit and number of attempts in different spell andfurther emphasis was that in the year 2015, the 1[st] respondentallowed one more attempt in the Civil Service Examination 2015for the candidates who appeared in CSE 2011. Although thejustification has been tendered by the respondents in theirresponse that as there was a substantial change in the pattern ofCivil Service (Preliminary) Examination 2011, in the givencircumstances, the 1st respondent in its wisdom considered itappropriate to grant one more attempt in CSE, 2015 to suchcandidates who appeared in Civil Service Examination, 2011 eitherdue to reaching upper age limit or due to exhausting of numberof attempts and that was the given situation which prevailed uponthe 1[st] respondent in taking a policy decision in grantingpermission but that cannot be made to be the basis or a foundationfor the petitioners to site as a precedent in claiming to seek oneadditional attempt as a matter of right which is not permissibleunder the scheme of Rules 2020 or with the aid of Art. 14 of theConstitution to take a call in meeting out the difficulties whichhave been faced as alleged in the given circumstance. [Para42][226-B-E]

2.1 Policy decisions are open for judicial review by thisCourt for a very limited purpose and this Court can interfere intothe realm of public policy so framed if it is either absolutelycapricious, totally arbitrary or not informed of reasons. [Para 43]

Union of India and Others vs. M. Selvakumar andAnother (2017) 3 SCC 504 : [2017] 4 SCR 137 - reliedon.

AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

206SUPREME COURT REPORTS

A2.2 Judicial review of a policy decision and to issuemandamus to frame policy in a particular manner are absolutelydifferent. It is within the realm of the executive to take a policydecision based on the prevailing circumstances for betteradministration and in meeting out the exigencies but at the sametime, it is not within the domain of the Courts to legislate. TheBCourts do interpret the laws and in such an interpretation, certaincreative process is involved. The Courts have the jurisdiction todeclare the law as unconstitutional. That too, where it is calledfor. The Court is called upon to consider the validity of a policydecision only when a challenge is made that such policy decisionCinfringes fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution orany other statutory right. Merely because as a matter of policy, ifthe 1st respondent has granted relaxation in the past for thereason that there was a change in the examination pattern/syllabusand in the given situation, had considered to be an impedimentfor the participant in the CSE, no assistance can be claimed byDthe petitioners in seeking mandamus to the 1st respondent tocome out with a policy granting relaxation to the participants whohad availed a final and last attempt or have crossed the upperage by appearing in the Examination 2020 as a matter of right.[Para 45][227-C-G]

E3. It has been brought to the notice that not only thepetitioners/intervenors before this Court, but there are largenumber of candidates who appeared in the various examinationsin the year 2020 during Covid 19 pandemic and everyone musthave faced some constraints/impediments/inconvenience in one Fway or the other and this Court can take a judicial notice thatthese petitioners have appeared in the same pattern ofexamination in the previous years since the year 2015 and whatis being claimed and prayed for under the guise of Covid 19pandemic is nothing but a lame excuse in taking additional attemptto participate in the CSE 2021 to be held in future and there is noGsubstance in either of the submissions made. [Para 46][227-G-H; 228-A-B]

4. The data furnished to this Court by the Commissionclearly indicate that various selections have been held by theCommission for Central Services in the year 2020 during CovidH

19 pandemic and selections must have been held by StateCommissions and other recruiting agencies, if this Court showsindulgence to few who had participated in the Examination 2020,it will set down a precedent and also have cascading effect onexaminations in other streams, for which this Court is dissuadedto exercise plenary powers under Art. 142 of the Constitution.However, it is made clear that this decision would not restrictthe 1st respondent or the executive in exercising its discretionin meeting out the nature of difficulties as being projected to thisCourt, if come across in future in dealing with the situation, ifrequired. [Para 47, 48][228-B-D]

Case Law Reference

[2017] 4 SCR 137relied onpara 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 PrashitKapadia, Advs. for the Appellants.

Tushar Mehta, SG., S. V. Raju, ASG., P.S. Narasimha, PallavShishodia, 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. PriyankaDubey, 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 theRespondents.

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 4[th] October 2020 butwhen they failed to achieve their goal, approached this Court by filingthe instant writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution seeking AB

C

D

EF

G

H

Amandamus to the 1st respondent to extend one additional attempt to thepetitioners/intervenors as they are being barred from attempting theexamination in future on account of exhausting of available attempts oron account of age bar subsequent to Examination 2020.

3. The prayer which has been made in the instant petition is asBfollows:- “(a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, orderor direction in the nature thereof and declare that the action of therespondents of not issuing appropriate policy for grant of an extraattempt to candidates for whom civil services examination 2020Cwould be last attempt as being violative of Articles 14, 19, 29 and21 of the Constitution of India, and by way of issuance of anappropriate writ, order or direction of or in the nature of mandamus,and/or any other writ, order or direction, inter-alia, direct theRespondent/s to provide one extra attempt to the last attemptcandidates including the petitioners, in addition to number ofDpermissible attempts: and/or (b) Pass any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Court maydeem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the caseand in the interest of justice.”

Brief Factual MatrixE

4. The background facts delineated from the records and relevantfor the purpose are that the Civil Services Examination is conductedevery year by the 2[nd] respondent (Union Public Service Commission-UPSC) and for the year 2020, the Ministry of Personnel, PublicFGrievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel and Training)published Gazette Notification dated 12[th] February, 2020 notifying therules for competitive examination, 2020 (hereinafter being referred to as“Rules 2020”) to be held by the 2nd respondent for the purpose ofrecruitment to 24 services/posts to be held in three stages:- (i) preliminary(ii) mains (iii) personality test.G

5. The scheme of Rules 2020 published on 12[th] February, 2020 isa complete code for the purposes of final selection to civil services. Theparameters prescribed for eligibility with regard to number of attemptsand 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 mentionedHhereunder:- “4. Every candidate appearing at the examination who is otherwiseeligible, shall be permitted six attempts at the examination.

Provided that this restriction on the number of attempts will notapply in the case of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribescandidates who are otherwise eligible.

Provided further that the number of attempts permissible tocandidates belonging to Other Backward Classes, who areotherwise eligible, shall be nine. The relaxation will be available tothe candidates who are eligible to avail of reservation applicableto such candidates.

Provided further that candidates belonging to persons withbenchmark disability will get as many attempts as are available tocandidates other than persons with benchmark disability of his orher community, subject to the condition that a candidate of personwith benchmark disability belonging to the General and EWSCategory shall be eligible for nine attempts. Necessary action tomake corresponding changes in respective Rules/regulationspertaining to various services is being taken separately. Therelaxation will be available to the candidate of persons withbenchmark disability who are eligible to avail of reservationapplicable to such candidates.

Note:-

(I) An attempt at a Preliminary Examination shall be deemed tobe an attempt at the Civil Services Examination.

(II) If a candidate actually appears in any one paper in thePreliminary Examination, he/she shall be deemed to have madean attempt at the Examination.

(III) Notwithstanding the disqualification/cancellation ofcandidature, the fact of appearance of the candidate at theexamination will count as an attempt.

6. (a) A candidate must have attained the age of 21 years andmust 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 A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

210SUPREME COURT REPORTS

[2021] 2 S.C.R.

Amake corresponding changes in respective Rules/Regulationspertaining 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 toa Scheduled Caste or a Scheduled Tribe; B

(ii) up to a maximum of three years in the case of candidatesbelonging to Other Backward Classes who are eligibleto avail of reservation applicable to such candidates;

(iii) up to a maximum of three years in the case of DefenceServices Personnel, disabled in operations duringhostilities with any foreign country or in a distributedarea and released as a consequence thereof; C

(iv) up to a maximum of five years in the case of ex-servicemen including Commissioned Officers and ECOs/DSSCOs who have rendered at least five years MilitaryService as on 1st August, 2020 and have been released; (a)on completion of assignment (including thosewhose assignment is due to be completed withinone year from 1st August, 2020 otherwise thanby way of dismissal or discharge on account ofmisconduct or inefficiency; or E

(b) on account of physical disability attributable toMilitary Service; or

(c) on invalidment.

F

(v) up to a maximum of five years in the case of ECOs/SSCOs who have completed an initial period ofassignment of five years of Military Service as on 1stAugust, 2020 and whose assignment has been extendedbeyond five years and in whose case the Ministry ofGDefence issues a certificate that they can apply for civilemployment and that they will be released on threemonths’ notice on selection from the date of receipt ofoffer of appointment.

(vi) up to a maximum of 10 years in the case of Personswith Benchmark Disabilities viz. (a) blindness and low

H

vision; (b) deaf and hard of hearing; (c) locomotordisability including cerebral palsy, leprosy cured,dwarfism, acid attack victims and muscular dystrophy;(d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learning disabilityand mental illness; (e) multiple disabilities from amongstperson under clauses (a) to (d) including deaf-blindness.

Note I :- Candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and theScheduled Tribes and the Other Backward Classes who are alsocovered under any other clauses of Rule 6(b) above, viz. thosecoming under the category of Ex-servicemen, Persons withBenchmark Disabilities [viz. (a) blindness and low vision; (b) deafand hard of hearing; (c) locomotor disability including cerebralpalsy, leprosy cured, dwarfism, acid attack victims and musculardystrophy; (d) autism, intellectual disability, specific learningdisability and mental illness; (e) multiple disabilities from amongstperson under clauses (a) to (d) including deaf-blindness.] will beeligible for grant of cumulative age-relaxation under both thecategories.

Note II : The details of Functional Classification (FC) and PhysicalRequirements (PR) of each service are indicated in Appendix IVof these Rules which are identified and prescribed by the respectiveCadre Controlling Authorities (CCAs) as per the provisions ofSection 33 and 34 of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act,2016. Only those category(ies) of disability(ies) mentioned inAppendix IV shall apply for the examination under Persons withBenchmark Disability (PwBD) category. Therefore, thecandidates belonging to the Persons with Benchmark Disabilitycategories are advised to read it carefully before applying for theexamination.

Note III:- The term Ex-servicemen will apply to the persons whoare defined as Ex-servicemen in the Ex-servicemen (Re-employment in Civil Services and Posts) Rules, 1979, as amendedfrom time to time.

Note IV:- The age concession under Rule 6(b)(iv) and (v) will beadmissible to Ex-servicemen i.e. a person who has served in anyrank whether as combatant or non-combatant in the Regular Army,Navy and Air Force of the Indian Union and who either has been AB

C

DE

F

G

H

Aretired or relieved or discharged from such service whether at hisown request or being relieved by the employer after earning hisor her pension.

Note V:- Notwithstanding the provision of age-relaxation underRule 6(b)(vi) above, Candidates of Persons with BenchmarkBDisability will be considered to be eligible for appointment only ifhe/she (after such physical examination as the Government orappointment authority, as the case may be, may prescribe) is foundto satisfy the requirements of physical and medical standards forthe concerned Services/Posts to be allocated to the Candidatesof Persons with Benchmark Disability by the Government.C

Save as provided above, the age-limits prescribed can in nocase be relaxed.

….”

Save as provided above, the age-limits prescribed can in nocase be relaxed.

….”

6. It may be relevant to note that for the candidates who appearDin the open category in the examination, they are permitted six attemptsbut for the candidates who are the members of Scheduled Castes andScheduled Tribes, there is no restriction on the number of attemptsprovided, they are otherwise eligible. For the candidates who are belongingto OBC/EWS category, they can avail nine attempts. A clarification hasEfurther been made that if the candidate appears even in one paper of thepreliminary 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 andexit at the age of 32 years. But the upper age limit is relaxable to thecategories of vertical/horizontal reservations and there is no such enablingprovision granting relaxation in the upper age limit to the candidatesFbelonging to general category as such those candidates of generalcategory who have attained the age of 32 years on 1[st] August, 2020 as inthe instant case became ineligible to participate in the ensuing CivilServices Examination, 2021 (in short “CSE 2021”).

7. Pursuant to the notification dated 12[th] February, 2020 publishedGin the Official Gazette by the 1[st] respondent, process of selection wasinitiated by the Commission inviting applications from the eligiblecandidates who wish to appear in the Examination 2020. According tothe notice published by the Commission, preliminary examination was tobe held on 31[st] May 2020. Appendix II-B annexed thereto deals with theprocedure for withdrawal of application after submission of onlineH

application, it could be withdrawn from 12[th] March, 2020 to 18[th] March,2020. Thereafter the admit cards were issued to all the candidates whointended to participate in the selection process, but because of theunprecedented Covid-19 pandemic, which was notified by the NationalDisaster Management Authority vide its order dated 24[th] March 2020,the Commission by its Press Release dated 4[th] May, 2020 deferred theExamination 2020 and further informed that the revised schedule ofexamination will be notified at a later stage.

8. Taking note of the unlock 1.0 guidelines published on 5[th] June2020, the Commission decided to conduct the preliminary examinationon 4[th] October, 2020. Several candidates submitted their objections.Taking note thereof, the Commission allowed the candidates to submittheir revised choice of examination center by its letter dated 1[st] July,2020 and further opened the window for withdrawal of the applicationfrom 1[st] August, 2020 to 8[th] August, 2020. This Court can take judicialnotice of the fact that after a second opportunity was afforded to thecandidates for withdrawal of the application, only such of the candidateswere left who had made up their mind and were mentally prepared toappear in the ensuing preliminary examination which was scheduled tobe held on 4[th] October, 2020.

9. As alleged that when no decision was taken by the respondenton their representations/objections for deferring of the examination,certain candidates filed Writ Petition (Civil) No.1012 of 2020 before thisCourt on 5th September, 2020 seeking postponement of the Examination2020 and the prayer for relaxation in upper age limit and an additionalattempt. This Court was not persuaded to issue a direction to theCommission to defer the schedule of examination to be held on 4thOctober, 2020 on the submissions made by the writ petitioners whoapproached this Court. Moreover, on one of the issues, this Courtexpressed a sanguine hope that possibility of providing one more attemptto such candidates with corresponding extension of age limit, if possible,can be explored by the concerned authorities. The submission made tomerge the two examinations, namely, to be conducted on 4[th] October,2020 with the examination scheduled for 2021, however, did not findfavour by this Court.

10. The relevant part of the order dated 30[th] September, 2020 isextracted as under:- ABC

D

E

F

G

H

A“(iv) The fourth point raised before us is that some of thecandidates may be giving last attempt and also likely to becomeage-barred for the next examination, and if such candidates areunable to appear in the examination due to Covid-19 pandemicsituation, it would cause great prejudice to them.

BIn this regard, we have impressed upon Mr. S.V. Raju, learnedAdditional Solicitor General appearing for the Ministry of HomeAffairs (MHA), Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW)and Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to explore thepossibility of providing one more attempt to such candidates withcorresponding extension of age limit. He has agreed to conveyCthe sentiments of the Court to all concerned and to take a formaldecision thereon expeditiously.”

11. The fact is that all the writ petitioners/intervenors appeared inthe preliminary examination held on 4[th] October, 2020 which wasconducted in 74 cities. During the course of arguments, followingDinformation 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, 2020-E4,86,952.-Number of last attempt candidates who appeared for Examination2020 and have not attained age bar for 2021- 3863

-Number of last attempt candidates who appeared in Examination2020 and would reach age bar for CSE 2021- 2236

F-Candidates having last attempt in terms of age bar but did notappear- 4237

-Combined effect of last attempt appeared : 3863 + 2236 = 6099which comes to around 1.25% of candidates who appeared forthe examination.G

-Combined effect of candidates who appeared and non-appearedand who require relaxation for 2021, i.e. total = 3863+2236+4237= 10,336 which comes to 0.97% of total candidates who enrolledfor Examination, 2020.

H

12. When the present petitioners/intervenors failed to qualify inthe preliminary examination held on 4[th] October, 2020 by the Commission,they approached this Court by filing of the instant writ petition, and thisCourt took note of the fact that in the light of the order passed in theearlier proceedings dated 30[th] September, 2020, the decision of thecompetent authority to fulfil the legitimate aspirations of the candidateswas still pending with the authority. During the pendency of the writpetition in deference to this Court, a decision was taken by the 1strespondent and placed for perusal dated 5[th] February, 2021 in which itwas agreed in principle to give one time restricted relaxation, limited toCSE 2021 to only those candidates who appeared in Examination 2020as their last permissible attempt and otherwise are not age-barred fromappearing in CSE 2021, and no relaxation to the candidates will be givenwho have not exhausted their permissible number of attempts or to thosecandidates who are otherwise age-barred from appearing in CSE 2021.The extract of the decision which was placed on record dated 5thFebruary, 2021 is reproduced hereunder:- “As per the suggestion of this Hon’ble Court, the Union of Indiais agreeable for the following ex-gratia, one-time, restrictedrelaxation to be granted to the prospective candidates, subject tothe 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 attemptfor Civil Service Examination (CSE), specifically limited toCSE-2021, may be granted to only those candidates whoappeared for CSE-2020 as their last permissible attempt andare otherwise not age-barred from appearing in CSE-2021.

2. No relaxation shall be granted for CSE-2021 to thosecandidates who have not exhausted their permissible numberof attempts or to those candidates who are otherwise age-barred from appearing in CSE-2021 as per the prescribed agelimits of different categories, or to any other candidate for anyother reason whatsoever.

3. This relaxation for the candidates and to the extent asprescribed above, shall be a one-time relaxation only and shallapply only for appearing in CSE-2021 and shall not be treatedas a precedent.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

4. The relaxation provided at Point 1, shall not create any vestedright whatsoever or any other purported right on ground ofparity or otherwise, in favour of any other set/class of candidatesat any time in the future.”

A

Submissions of the partiesB

13. The main thrust of submission of learned counsel for thepetitioners is that the sudden and strict lockdown due to unprecedentedpandemic in March, 2020 had made a large disruption in the life of thecommon man and the measures adopted led to difficulties andimpediments in the preparation of the Examination 2020 for many aspirantsCand the Government failed to take any policy decision for the lastattemptees before holding Examination 2020 to enable them to take anappropriate/suitable decision and noticing precedence from the earlierpolicy of 1st respondent to grant an extra attempt to last-attemptees inthe event causing widespread hardships left with no choice except toappear in the examination even though they did not have an adequateDopportunity and infrastructure and they were left out blinded withuncertainty.

14. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitionersare placed in the disadvantageous position with the onset of the pandemicand due to the unprecedented measures imposed in the wake thereof.EThat apart, candidates working in essential services did not have thebenefit of seeking leave or claiming exemption from duty/overtime dutylooking to the nature of their services and in the light of invocation ofThe Essential Services Maintenance Act, 1968 and The DisasterManagement Act, 2005. There is no benefit accruing to persons inFessential services and public employment, consequent to the unlockguidelines.

15. Learned counsel further submits that denial of an additionalattempt to the petitioners will make them to suffer serious discriminationamongst who have not faced such hurdles as being faced by theGpetitioners in their preparation during the unprecedented pandemic. Whileothers had a choice of leaving the Examination 2020, while taking careof their health, the last attemptees particularly in terms of age, were leftwith no choice and had to sit for the exam despite the lack of opportunityto prepare which is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitutionof India.H

16. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioners weredeprived 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 theirpreparation and even on the date of examination, but the impact may notbe uniform on all the participants and at least to those who are essentialservice providers and such candidates deserve one more attempt whenthey virtually lost for unavoidable circumstances their last attempt in2020 and there are past precedents to grant of extra attempt in additionto age relaxation for such years when UPSC Civil ServicesExaminations’ aspirants faced hardships due to various reasons.

17. Learned counsel for the intervenors in addition furthersubmitted that the discretion exercised by the 1st respondent dated 5thFebruary, 2021 to grant one time relaxation limited to only those candidateswho appeared for Examination 2020 as their last permissible attemptand otherwise not age-bared from appearing in CSE 2021 with norelaxation to the candidates who have not exhausted their permissiblenumber of attempts or to those candidates who are otherwise age-barredfrom appearing in CSE 2021 is not a rational decision and no suchclassification could be made amongst the group of candidates who hadparticipated in Examination 2020 as a last attempt and are debarred toappear in CSE 2021 because of the attempt being exhausted or havingcrossed the upper age limit and it was expected from the 1[st] respondentto take a holistic view of the situation and grant one time relaxation to allthe candidates who had participated in Examination 2020 regardless ofthe fact whether one has availed all the attempts or crossed the agebarrier disqualifying to appear in CSE 2021.

18. Learned counsel for intervenors further submits that thecandidates who appeared in Examination 2020 by and large are affectedbecause of unprecedented pandemic and they were unable to preparethemselves to appear in the examination due to various impedimentswhich came in front of them of which adequate reasons have beenfurnished to this Court. In the given circumstances, at least taking alenient and a holistic view of the matter, this Court may exercise itsjurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution granting one timerelaxation to the candidates who appeared in Examination 2020 withone additional attempt regardless of the fact whether one has exhaustedthe number of attempts or crossed the upper age limit as prescribed AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aunder the Rules 2020 and it does not affect either the integrity of theexamination or any restriction on the prospective participants of CSE2021 and to those who have already availed the attempts. All hopes ofthe candidates remain in the last attempt but that had gone in vain becauseof the unprecedented situation which came in front of them and thatwas the only reason for which they have not been able to put their fullBpotential to qualify the Examination 2020.

19. Per contra, counter affidavits have been filed by therespondents in their defence and it has been stated that the syllabus forthe preliminary examination has not been changed since 2015 andexamination of this nature is not possible for a candidate to prepare atCthe last moment and it needs a lot of planning, spanning of a number ofgoing through this preparation. Entry age of candidates is 21 years andexit age for general candidates is 32 years. Relaxations/upper age limitsare available to candidates who appear in certain categories of vertical/horizontal reservations. Hence, for general candidates there is a time ofD11 years if they would be able to start preparing at the age of 21. Afterthe process was initiated pursuant to Rules 2020, as per the scheme, theexamination was scheduled for 31[st] May, 2020. There was a clear timeof three and a half months and by the time candidate appeared in theirlast attempt, they would have a lot of experience so it could easily beinferred that they have consumed sufficient time to prepare for theEpreliminary examination as no change in the syllabus has been giveneffect to after the year 2015 but taking note of the unprecedented situationof Covid-19 pandemic, the policy decision was taken by the Commissionto defer the examination and on 5[th] June 2020, it was declared that theexamination is to be scheduled on 4[th] October, 2020. Therefore, insteadFof three months which is the requirement under the scheme of rules,candidates got almost five additional months (i.e. eight months) to preparefor the Examination 2020 and to compensate the hardships caused byCovid-19 pandemic, different modalities were adopted by the respondent.So far as the demand made by the petitioners for extra attempt or extrayear is concerned, it has been specifically stated that giving of an extraGattempt or the year would result in hardships being caused to thecandidates who are appearing for the CSE 2021 and that apart anadditional attempt has been demanded by the petitioners who are thelast attempters or who have crossed the age bar.

20. According to the learned counsel, that would result inHdiscrimination for the reason that all attemptees irrespective of the nature of attempt (i.e., 1[st], 2[nd] etc.) must have suffered during this Covid-19pandemic and hence the consideration of giving an additional attempt toonly last attemptees would be discriminatory. At the same time, such ofthe successful candidates can also complain but for Covid-19, theirrankings in the list of successful candidates would have been much higher,therefore, they should also be given an additional chance. Similarreasoning would apply as far as the upper age is concerned and so faras the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners areconcerned, these are without prejudice to the main contention that theyare not entitled for relaxation as prayed for.

21. It has been further stated that the first national lockdown cameinto force on 25[th] March, 2020, i.e., after one and a half month of thenotice of examination published on 12[th] February 2020. From 1st June,2020, gradual unlocking of the lockdown had started on monthly basisand the preliminary examination was held on 4th October, 2020 whenthe unlock guidelines 5.0 were in force. To meet out the bone of contentionof the petitioners that there are precedents for granting relaxation onearlier occasions is concerned, it has been stated that these are thepolicy decisions taken by the executive in a particular facts andcircumstances and the present decision has to be tested independentlyin the given circumstances, which has no relativity or comparison.

22. It has also been stated that the candidates who had appearedin the examination had accepted the rules of the Examination 2020 andnow having appeared and failed, they cannot be permitted to approbateand reprobate in the same breath after they had failed in the Examination2020. The submission may not hold good for the reason that their prayeris to grant additional attempt to appear in CSE 2021 and the petitionershave not questioned the procedure of selection held of PreliminaryExamination 2020, deserves rejection.

23. The 2[nd] respondent (UPSC) has also filed its counter affidavitand it has been stated that due to prevailing conditions in the country inthe year 2020 on account of Covid-19 pandemic, several decisions weretaken by the Commission to reschedule the examinations as a matter offact, no examination was held during the period of lockdown. Theresumption of examinations started with the NDA & NA Examination(I) & (II) on 6[th] September, 2020 and apart from Examination 2020,following are the examinations and recruitment tests held by theCommission during the period 6[th] September, 2020 to 20[th] December,2020:- AB

CD

EF

G

H

220SUPREME COURT REPORTS[2021] 2 S.C.R.ASl. No. Name of Date of Number of Number of Examination Examination candidates candidates applied appeared 1 NDA/NA Exam (I) & 06.09.2020 530185 240445 (II)2 Civil Services (Pre) 04.10.2020 1040060 482770 ExamB3 Indian Economic 16-18 Oct, 2020 10458 1461 Service4Indian Statistical 16-18 Oct, 2020120901753Service Exam Combined 17-18 Oct, 2020 720 619 5 Geoscientist (Main) Exam 6Engineering Services 10.10.202022631955C(Main) Exam 7 Combined Medical 22.10.2020 43120 20213 Services Exam 8 Combined Defence 08.11.2020 234343 118250 Services Exam-II9 Central Armed Police 20.12.2020 296066 89946 Forces Exam D10CBRTs20.12.20202698814250Total 2196293 971662

24. Learned counsel for the Commission submits that althoughthe decision has to be taken by the 1st respondent in meeting out theprayer made by the writ petitioners but so far as the 2nd respondentE(UPSC) is concerned, all effective measures were adopted in holdingthe examinations/recruitment tests of various Central Services duringthe said period and indulgence which has been prayed for by the petitionersappeared in Examination 2020, in the given circumstances, of which thedetails have been furnished need no further indulgence by this Court.

FAnalysis

25. We have heard Mr. Shyam Divan, learned senior counselappearing for the petitioners; Mr. S.V. Raju, learned Additional SolicitorGeneral and Mr. Naresh Kaushik, learned counsel appearing for therespondents; Mr. P.V. Narasimha and Mr. Pallav Shishodia, learned seniorGcounsel appearing for the intervenors and with their assistance perusedthe material available on record.

“The question that emerges for our consideration is thatwhether the petitioners/intervenors and other similarly placedcandidates are entitled to another/additional chance for CSE

H

2021 on account of the unprecedented Covid-19 pandemicwhich as alleged has deprived them from effectivelyparticipating in the Examination 2020”.

26. There is no doubt that for India or for rest of the world, Covid-19 has been a disaster of unprecedented proportions. The crisis of Covid-19 pandemic has provided the sternest test for disaster managementresponse in most countries, including India. Due to unprecedented spreadof the virus, the world had gone into a virtual lockdown as severalcountries initiated strict screening of potential cases introduced in theirterritory. Disasters are testing times for the institutions and individuals,processes and procedures, and policies and their implementationmechanisms. We can take judicial notice that when Covid-19 struckIndia, the country already had in place legal and administrative instrumentsto empower and enable the State to contain and manage the severalcrisis that would arise from the pandemic. Two of the most legalinstruments are the Distaster Management Act, 2005 and the EpidemicDiseases Act, 1897 amended in the year 2020.

27. The World Health Organization(WHO) has declared it as aglobal pandemic. Not only that but because of its rampant spread,countries were forced to stop international traveling as well as locked upthemselves. Also, the lockdown has been recognised at the given pointof time as the only method to control the spread of the pandemic andalmost every country has adopted this method.

28. On 25th March, 2020, the Disaster Management Act 2005(DMAct) was invoked in India for the first time since it was passed almost amonth and a half ago, to tackle the Covid-19 pandemic that was then inits initial stages of spreading. The National Disaster ManagementAuthority(NDMA) which was created by the Ministry of HomeAffairs(MHA) in pursuance of the Disaster Management Act 2005,issued a notification dated 24th March, 2020 under Section 6(2)(i) of theDM Act. The order directed the ministries and departments ofGovernment of India and State Governments along with State DisasterManagement Authorities to take measures for “ensuring social distancingso as to prevent the spread of Covid-19 in the country”.

29. In the early phases of this spread of Covid-19 pandemic, theresponse attempted to control the ingress of the virus in our countrythrough border control, screening of persons entering the country, follow- AB

C

D

E

F

G

H

Aup surveillance and contract tracing. This was followed by series ofcountrywide lockdown measures: Lockdown 1 (25[th] March, 2020 to 15thApril, 2020), Lockdown 2 (16[th] April, 2020 to 3[rd] May, 2020) andLockdown 3 and 4 (4[th] May, 2020 to 17[th] May, 2020 and then throughMay 31[st]). Instituted and publicized by the Central Government underthe Disaster Management Act 2005, these lockdowns varied in scopeBand nature, depending on the situation on the ground.

30. Despite that Covid-19 pandemic has affected the livelihood ofthe common man at all levels, be it a level of education system, frompre-school to tertiary education. Different countries introduced variouspolicies in meeting out the widespread socio-economic implications butCthe Covid-19 pandemic has left its footprints for us to learn from theunprecedented situation, which everyone has come across and suddenlychanged the lifestyle of every individual in the society, his way of working,from social security to individual human rights, from macro economy tohousehold income and has made us more stronger to face, if any difficultDsituation arises in future and this is what by experience we learn. Thereis an old saying “there is good in every evil”. Still life has to move on inall situations, and this is what this country has faced, but resiliently foughtback this unprecedented situation and the economy and life of the commonman is on the path towards normalcy in a short period of time thanexpected.E31. While reverting to the facts of the instant case of thepetitioners, what is prayed by them in the first blush appears to beattractive but it lacks legal strength and foundation for various reasons.

32. The scheme of Rules 2020 of which a detailed reference hasFbeen made and Rules 4 & 6 in particular, clearly stipulate that the entryage to participate in this competition is 21 years and the exit age forgeneral candidates is 32 years and at least each candidate gets minimum11 years to participate in the competitive examination, i.e., CSE, in theinstant case. For those who claim reservation vertical/ horizontal, theyhave numerous/unlimited chances and are also entitled for age relaxations.GThus, the scheme takes note in providing adequate opportunities to thecandidates to participate in this competitive examination at all levels. Itmay further be noticed that under Rule 6 of Rules 2020, there is a clearmandate that age limit prescribed in no case can be relaxed subject tothe relaxations which have been enumerated for various categories. SoHfar as the candidates who appear in the general category and have crossed the age of 32 years, no discretion is left with the authority togrant any relaxation in upper age limit prescribed for the candidatesappeared in the instant Examination 2020.

33. The syllabus of the preliminary examination has not changedsince 2015 and after the Rules 2020 were notified by the 1[st] respondentfor Civil Services Exam 2020, the notice, in the first instance, was publishedon 12[th] February 2020 and the scheduled date of the examination wasfixed on 31[st] May, 2020 but because of the unprecedented situation ofCovid-19 pandemic, the Commission took a policy decision to defer theexamination and in the changed situation, after there was a relaxation inthe lockdown, ultimately on 5[th] June, 2020 took a decision to hold theexamination on 4[th ]October 2020 and, therefore, instead of three months,the candidates got additional five months (i.e. eight months) to whichone ordinarily can prepare for appearing in the examination in terms ofthe scheme of Rules 2020.

34. Under the scheme of Rules 2020, mere filling up of the formis not sufficient to avail an attempt. If someone appeared in either of thepaper of the preliminary examination, that was considered to be anattempt availed by the candidate and, in the given situation, after theapplication form was filled, the candidates who wanted to withdrawtheir application form at the later stage because of the Covid-19pandemic, the commission took a policy decision to open the window forthe second time, which in the ordinary course is not available under thescheme of rules, for the candidates who intended to withdraw theirapplication from 1[st] August, 2020 to 8[th] August, 2020. Since theexamination was scheduled for 4th October, 2020 only those candidateswere left who were mentally prepared to appear and willing to avail anopportunity of appearing in the Examination 2020 and after appearing inthe examination, when they could not qualify, it has given a way to thepresent litigation on the specious ground of Covid-19 pandemic that theywere unable to effectively participate in the process of selection whichhas been initiated by the Commission in holding preliminary examinationon 4[th] October, 2020.

35. This court cannot lose sight of the fact that apart from thepresent Examination 2020, it has been brought to the notice of this Courtthat remedial measures were adopted for the candidates who hadparticipated in the various examinations/recruitment tests held for Centralservices by the Commission at the given point of time during the Covid AB

C

DE

F

G

H

A19 pandemic and apart from that, the State Commissions/recruitingagencies must have conducted their examinations/recruitment tests forvarious services and merely because the present petitioners made acomplaint to this Court, cannot be taken into isolation for the purpose ofseeking additional chance/attempt in the backdrop of Covid-19 pandemic,which has been faced by not only the candidates appeared in ExaminationB2020 but by the candidates appeared in the various examinations/recruitment tests held by the State Commissions or by other recruitingagencies and by and large, every member of the society in one way orthe other but that does not in any manner give legitimate right to thepetitioners to claim additional benefit/attempt which is otherwise notCpermissible under the scheme of Rules 2020.

36. So far as the instant case is concerned, there are limitedattempts for the candidates who appeared in the general category andthe scheme of Rules 2020 does not provide any discretion to the 1strespondent to grant relaxation either in attempt or in age and any exerciseDof discretion which does not vest with the 1st respondent, if exercised,may go in contravention to the scheme of Rules 2020.

37. Taking note of the order of this Court dated 30th September,2020 passed in Writ Petition(Civil) No. 1012 of 2020 in the earlierproceedings, this Court has shown some sympathy for the candidatesEwho were having their last attempt and were also likely to become agebarred for next examination, if any indulgence could be shown to them.In compliance of the order of this Court, the 1[st] respondent has madeendeavour to find out a way which is possible to give solace to suchcandidates and placed it before this Court that too with reservation thatthere is a possibility in providing one extra attempt for the candidatesFwho had availed the last and final attempt in Examination 2020 providedthey are within their respective age brackets as provided under Rule 6of the Rules 2020. After the proposal was placed on record, even thepetitioners/intervenors inter se made their submission to the Court thatthe proposal which has been placed by the 1st respondent forGconsideration of this Court according to them is discriminatory and is inviolation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

38. We do find substance in what being urged by learned counselfor the petitioners inter se in questioning the decision placed by 1[st]respondent for our consideration. If an additional attempt remainsHrestricted to the last attemptees for the reason that they had suffered during Covid 19 pandemic, all attemptees irrespective of the nature ofattempt (i.e. 1st, 2nd etc.) who appeared in Examination 2020 must havefaced the same consequences as being faced by the writ petitioners andeach one of them have suffered in one way or the other during theCovid-19 pandemic. At the same time, this reasoning would equally applyto those who have crossed the upper age barrier. More so, when nodiscretion is left with the 1st respondent to grant relaxation in the agebracket to the candidates other than provided under Rule 6 of the schemeof Rules 2020 which indeed the present petitioners are not entitled toclaim as a matter of right and that apart, those who have withdrawntheir forms either because of lack of preparation or because of somepersonal reasons but have crossed the upper age limit to appear in CSE2021, they would also be equally entitled to claim and no distinction couldbe made whether the candidate has appeared in the Examination 2020and availed the last attempt or attempts is still available at his disposal orhas crossed the upper age limit.

39. We do find substance that any concession either in attempt orage is not available under the scheme of Rules 2020, at the same time,proposal which has been placed by the 1[st] respondent before us apartfrom complaint made inter se by the petitioners/intervenors themselvesof being discriminatory in character, we are also of the view that it isadvisable to avoid this situation and any relaxation which is not permissibleeither in attempt or age under the scheme of Rules 2020 apart frombeing in contravention to the rules, it may be discriminatory and it isadvisable not to exercise discretion in implementing what being proposedby the 1st respondent in compliance of the order of this Court dated 30thSeptember, 2020.

40. The thrust of submission of learned counsel for the petitionerswas that discretion has been exercised by the respondent as a matter ofpolicy in the earlier selections and the present petitioners have a legitimateexpectation that the Government must exercise its discretion to overcomethe unprecedented situation which the petitioners have faced whileappearing in the Examination 2020 and their right of fair considerationand effective participation in the selection process has been denied tothem which is in violation of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

41. The submission, in our view, is without substance for the reasonthat the policy decisions which had been taken by the executive on earlieroccasions of which a reference has been made always depend on the A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Afacts and circumstances at the given point of time and has to be testedindependently in the circumstances in which it has been exercised bythe competent authority or the 1st respondent as in the instant case.

42. Their further grievance that there is always a change in theupper age limit and number of attempts in different spell and furtherBemphasis was that in the year 2015, the 1st respondent allowed onemore attempt in the Civil Service Examination 2015 for the candidateswho appeared in CSE 2011. Although the justification has been tenderedby the respondents in their response that as there was a substantialchange in the pattern of Civil Service (Preliminary) Examination 2011, inthe given circumstances, the 1[st] respondent in its wisdom considered itCappropriate to grant one more attempt in Civil Service Examination, 2015to such candidates who appeared in Civil Service Examination, 2011either due to reaching upper age limit or due to exhausting of number ofattempts and that was the given situation which prevailed upon the 1strespondent in taking a policy decision in granting permission but thatDcannot be made to be the basis or a foundation for the petitioners to siteas a precedent in claiming to seek one additional attempt as a matter ofright which is not permissible under the scheme of Rules 2020 or withthe aid of Article 14 of the Constitution to take a call in meeting out thedifficulties which have been faced as alleged in the given circumstance.

E43. It is the settled principle of law that policy decisions are openfor judicial review by this Court for a very limited purpose and this Courtcan interfere into the realm of public policy so framed if it is eitherabsolutely capricious, totally arbitrary or not informed of reasons andhas been considered by this Court in Union of India and Others Vs.M. Selvakumar and Another2017(3) SCC 504. The relevant portionFis as under:- “47. There is one more reason due to which we are unable tosubscribe to the view taken by the Madras High Court and DelhiHigh Court. The horizontal reservation and relaxation for PhysicallyHandicapped Category candidates for Civil Services Examination,Gis a matter of Governmental policy and the Government afterconsidering the relevant materials has extended relaxation andconcessions to the Physically Handicapped candidates belongingto the Reserved Category as well as General Category. It is not inthe domain of the courts to embark upon an inquiry as to whetherHa particular public policy is wise and acceptable or whether better policy could be evolved. The Court can only interfere if the policy-framed is absolutely capricious and noninformed by reasons, ortotally arbitrary, offending the basic requirement of Article 14 ofthe Constitution.”

(Emphasis supplied)

44. It was the case where the number of attempts granted tophysically handicapped persons were increased from 4 to 7 in the UPSC-CSE examination and the candidates belonging to the OBC had movedthis Court requesting for an increase of the number of attempts from 7to 10 that is an additional 3 attempts as it was done in the case of thephysically handicapped category but that was repelled by this Court forthe reasons indicated above.

45. Judicial review of a policy decision and to issue mandamus toframe policy in a particular manner are absolutely different. It is withinthe realm of the executive to take a policy decision based on the prevailingcircumstances for better administration and in meeting out the exigenciesbut 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, certaincreative process is involved. The Courts have the jurisdiction to declarethe law as unconstitutional. That too, where it is called for. The Court iscalled upon to consider the validity of a policy decision only when achallenge is made that such policy decision infringes fundamental rightsguaranteed by the Constitution or any other statutory right. Merelybecause as a matter of policy, if the 1st respondent has granted relaxationin the past for the reason that there was a change in the examinationpattern/syllabus and in the given situation, had considered to be animpediment for the participant in the Civil Service Examination, noassistance can be claimed by the petitioners in seeking mandamus to the1st respondent to come out with a policy granting relaxation to theparticipants who had availed a final and last attempt or have crossed theupper age by appearing in the Examination 2020 as a matter of right.

46. It has been brought to our notice that not only the petitioners/intervenors before this Court, but there are large number of candidateswho appeared in the various examinations in the year 2020 during Covid19 pandemic and everyone must have faced some constraints/impediments/inconvenience in one way or the other and this Court cantake a judicial notice that these petitioners have appeared in the samepattern of examination in the previous years since the year 2015 and A

B

C

DE

F

G

H

Awhat is being claimed and prayed for under the guise of Covid 19pandemic is nothing but a lame excuse in taking additional attempt toparticipate in the Civil Service Examination 2021 to be held in future andwe find no substance in either of the submissions which has been madebefore us.

B47. The data furnished to this Court by the Commission clearlyindicate that various selections have been held by the Commission forCentral Services in the year 2020 during Covid 19 pandemic and selectionsmust have been held by State Commissions and other recruiting agencies,if this Court shows indulgence to few who had participated in theExamination 2020, it will set down a precedent and also have cascadingCeffect on examinations in other streams, for which we are dissuaded toexercise plenary powers under Article 142 of the Constitution.

48. We, however, make it clear that this decision would not restrictthe 1st respondent or the executive in exercising its discretion in meetingout the nature of difficulties as being projected to this Court, if comeDacross in future in dealing with the situation, if required.

49. Consequently, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.

50. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.

ENidhi Jain

Writ petition dismissed.

F

G

H