LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Rachna v. Union of India

Writ Petition (Civil) · 2021 INSC 116Decided 24 Feb 2021
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 1410 of 2020
Justice A.M. Khanwilkar · Justice Indu Malhotra · Justice Ajay Rastogi

Background

A batch of candidates who had exhausted their permissible attempts or crossed the upper age limit after failing the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination 2020, held on 4 October 2020 after being deferred from its original May 2020 date due to COVID-19, petitioned the Supreme Court under Article 32 for an additional attempt, arguing the pandemic had hampered their preparation and effective participation. The applicable 2020 Examination Rules fixed a maximum number of attempts and a strict age ceiling of 32 years for general-category candidates, with no provision for discretionary relaxation. In response to an earlier Court order showing sympathy for "last-attempt" candidates, the Union government had proposed giving one extra attempt only to those who had used their final attempt in 2020, but even the petitioners themselves objected that this partial fix was discriminatory.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the examination rules left no discretion to relax either the number of attempts or the age limit for general-category candidates, and that the Commission had already granted substantial accommodations (deferring the exam by five months, reopening the withdrawal window) in response to the pandemic. It agreed that the government's proposed partial relief (extra attempt only for "last-attemptees") would itself be arbitrary and discriminatory under Article 14, since all 2020 candidates, and indeed candidates across many other 2020 exams nationwide, faced similar pandemic-related hardship, so singling out one subgroup could not be justified. Citing the limited scope of judicial review over policy decisions (intervention only where a policy is arbitrary, capricious or unreasoned), the Court declined to direct the Commission to create a new policy granting extra attempts, holding that doing so would set a precedent with cascading effects across other recruitment processes nationwide. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, with liberty left to the executive to address such difficulties through policy in future if it chooses.

Lesson Learnt

Courts will not use their writ jurisdiction to rewrite eligibility rules for competitive examinations or compel the executive to adopt a particular policy accommodation, even for hardship as widespread as a pandemic: judicial review of policy is limited to cases of arbitrariness, and a selectively generous fix can itself be struck down as discriminatory.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Service & Administrative Law

Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

M. Prema v. The State of Tamil Nadu Rep. by its Secretary to the Government and Ors.

The Supreme Court agreed with the High Court that Direct recruits, having come through the regular competitive process, rank above Special appointees, who entered through temporary appointments later regularised. However, it held the High Court was wrong to rank Compassionate appointees above Direct recruits merely because of an executive Government Order fixing their seniority by appointment date: such an executive order cannot override the basic service-law principle that employees selected through a regular process must rank senior to those who entered through exceptions like compassionate appointment. The Court further held that, as between Special appointees and Compassionate appointees, seniority should be fixed by date of regularisation rather than any other formula. The Transferred Cases were dismissed, and the Civil Appeals were disposed of/allowed to the extent needed to reflect this ranking (Direct recruits > Compassionate appointees > Special appointees, broadly, subject to date-of-regularisation for the latter two inter se).

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

State of Bihar & Ors. v. Nandeshwar Kumar

The Supreme Court allowed Bihar's appeal and set aside the reinstatement order. It held that eligibility had to be assessed under the 2006 recruitment rules governing Kumar's 2007 appointment, rather than solely by the date of his training certificate. He lacked a certificate from an NCTE-recognised training institution as required for that appointment, so obtaining the certificate before the NCTE law took effect did not establish eligibility. The Court noted the inadequate material behind earlier findings about the college's genuineness, but resolved this appeal on the statutory qualification requirement rather than declaring the certificate fake.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Chhaganbhai Kohyabhai Pateliya & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal in the terms it set out. Because the Single Judge was dealing with a batch of employees, the Court held that each claimant must apply, and the authorities must verify each claim and pay the increment and revise pension and retiral dues accordingly. It extended the same benefit to the proforma respondents who had not joined the appeal. It directed the authorities to release the amounts due within 30 days, failing which interest at 6% per annum would be payable from the date of default. It also left the individual calculations to the authorities, relying on its earlier orders on arrears and interest.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Axay Kumar vs. Union of India & Ors.

The Court granted leave and liberty to withdraw, and the writ petition was disposed of as withdrawn, with the petitioner free to file afresh in accordance with law. No findings were made on the underlying grievance.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawSupreme Court of India

Santosh B. Naik v. State of Goa & Ors.

The Supreme Court held that the High Court had erred in interfering with the selection committee's eligibility decision, which was in accordance with the Recruitment Rules for the post and the advertisement. The Court set aside the High Court's judgment, along with the other candidate's later appointment, and restored the committee's decision and the appellant's temporary appointment. It clarified that its conclusion applies only to the Recruitment Rules for this post and expresses no view on the general recognition of NIOS qualifications for other purposes.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Service & Administrative LawDelhi High Court

Anil Kumar Tanwar vs. The Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.

The Court disposed of the writ petition on the parties' agreed terms: the CBI was directed to file its reply to the pending application within two weeks, both sides were to exchange short notes of submissions before the Tribunal, neither side could seek adjournments when the matter is listed, and the Court requested the Tribunal to finally decide the matter (which involves a transfer) on 29 October 2026.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case