"We sympathize, but earlier judgment takes care of it": Supreme Court refuses to entertain plea by UPSC candidates seeking extra attempt

While sympathising with candidates who exhausted their last attempt at the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) exam in October last year, the Supreme Court today refused to issue directions to the Central government and UPSC to grant them an extra attempt (Abhishek Anand Sinha v. Union of India)..The Bench of Justices AM Khanwilkar and Sanjiv Khanna stated that in Rachna v. Union of India passed last year, the Court had dismissed a petition seeking an extra attempt at the UPSC Prelims 2021 for those civil services aspirants who had exhausted all their attempts in October 2020. It stated that it was bound by this three-judge bench judgment. .However, the Bench granted the petitioners seeking an extra attempt liberty to submit representations before the concerned authorities. The Bench urged the authorities to take a lenient view on these pleas in light of the COVID-19 pandemic situation.."Petitioners made unsuccessful attempts in persuading us that their prayers were not covered in the Rachna case and they constitute a separate class as they were forced not to appear in exam on account of directions issued by local authorities under Disaster Management Act. According to them, the situation was of forced option but not a case of nonappearance by choice. Although we may have sympathy for the situation, these issues raised are covered by the decision in Rachna vs UOI. We permit a representation to be filed with the government and hope a lenient view may be taken. We are not expressing any opinion regarding the feasibility of all such issues," reads the order. .Justice Khanna clarified that any orders or directions in this case would mean more litigation and "chaos.""This will generate so much litigation and lead to a lot of chaos. In Rachna's case this closes the chapter and what was said there is applicable. We are aware of the practical consequences. This is what it is. It can also happen to a candidate who is well prepared but suffers a sickness," said Justice Khanna. .During the hearing, it was observed that the Court can only strike down a policy if there is manifest unreasonableness."The question of reasonableness has already been examined. Instead of appealing to us, why not appeal to the authority that made the policy?" the Bench asked..Senior Advocate Krishnan Venugopal, appearing for some of the petitioners, argued that the judgment in the Rachna case dealt with only those candidates who had given the examination in 2020, and did not cover those who could not appear in the exam due to COVID-related difficulties and became age-barred for the 2021 exam. "That judgment only deals with one class and they were those who made the decision to give the attempt," said Venugopal. .Senior Advocates Maninder Singh, Gopal Sankaranarayanan, Devadatt Kamat and Malvika Trivedi appeared for other petitioners and intervenors. .[Read a live account of the hearing]