02 August 2024 Education >> Miscellaneous  

In a dramatic turn of events that underscores the unpredictability of competitive examinations and the nuances of legal recourse, the Supreme Court of India has delivered a pivotal ruling in the matter of Rakshit Shivam Prakash vs Union of India & Another regarding a petitioner’s missed opportunity in the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) Civil Services Examination 2014. The case, marked by a series of procedural missteps and significant delays, reveals both the challenges of navigating bureaucratic systems and the extraordinary measures taken by the judiciary to ensure justice.

Background:

In 2014, the petitioner embarked on the rigorous journey of the UPSC Civil Services Examination. After successfully clearing the Preliminary, Main, and Interview stages, he faced a setback during the medical examination held on April 29, 2015. The medical board deemed him ‘temporarily unfit’ due to an elevated Body Mass Index (BMI) of 31.75, surpassing the permissible limit of 30. Despite this setback, a re-medical examination was scheduled for July 14, 2015. However, on July 4, 2015, the UPSC released the final list of selected candidates, and the petitioner’s name was conspicuously absent. Believing that the selection process was concluded, he missed the re-medical test, a decision that would later haunt him as his hopes for a future in civil services began to wane.

The Unexpected Twist:

Fast forward to January 19, 2016, when a reserve list of 126 candidates was published, with the petitioner ranked 93rd. This development reignited his hopes as candidates ranked below him, up to 97th, were allocated services. The petitioner’s renewed optimism led him to seek legal recourse, initially through the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and subsequently through the Patna High Court. The petitioner’s case drew parallels with that of Mr. K. Rajashekhara Reddy, another candidate who had missed his re-medical examination. The Telangana High Court had granted Mr. Reddy relief, directing a re-medical examination and considering him for appointment. On June 14, 2022, the Supreme Court of India, exercising its jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution, upheld this decision, granting Mr. Reddy appointment with all consequential benefits, barring the salary for the period he was not employed.

The Supreme Court's Decision:

Following the Supreme Court’s precedent in Mr. Reddy’s case, the petitioner withdrew his pending Writ Petition before the Patna High Court and sought similar treatment. The Supreme Court, in August 2023, partly granted his petition, directing the respondents to reschedule the missed re-medical test.

Court’s Ruling:

The Court’s ruling was multifaceted:

1. Allocation of Service: The petitioner’s request for service allocation and consequential benefits from the 2014 batch was denied. The Court emphasized that the missed re-medical test was a critical procedural lapse.
2. Re-medical Examination: The Court ordered that the petitioner be given another chance for a re-medical test within four weeks. It was specified that should he pass the re-medical examination:
• He would not be entitled to appointment in the 2014 batch.
• He would not receive seniority in that batch.
• His service, if appointed, would commence from the appointment date, not retroactively.
3. Exceptional Circumstances: The Court highlighted the exceptional nature of the case, clarifying that this decision is unique and should not set a precedent for future cases.

Conclusion:

This case serves as a potent reminder of the complexities involved in administrative processes and the role of the judiciary in addressing procedural injustices. The Supreme Court’s intervention underscores a commitment to ensuring fairness, even when dealing with missed deadlines and procedural errors. The ruling not only provides a second chance for the petitioner but also reinforces the importance of adhering to prescribed procedures and deadlines in competitive examinations.