E-Paper
At what level was decision to deny extra chance at UPSC prelims taken: SC
The Govt faces the ire of the Supreme Court for filing an affidavit by an Under Secretary in DoPT without indicating at whose level the decision was taken to deny an extra chance to final attempt candidates of the Civil Services prelims conducted last year.
The Government faced the ire of the Supreme Court on Thursday for filing an affidavit by an Under Secretary in the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) without indicating at whose level the crucial decision was taken to deny an extra chance to final attempt candidates of the Civil Services (Preliminary) examination conducted last year. The Centre now has 24 hours to file a better affidavit before the top court.
More than 100 candidates who gave their last attempt to get into Civil Services on October 4, 2020 had sought an extra chance as a one-time exemption. While some were frontline workers employed on COVID-19 duties and got little time to prepare for the examination, there were others who could not access online study material due to poor internet connectivity in far-flung areas.
Dashing their hopes, the Centre filed an affidavit on Monday that any exemption granted to the petitioners will have a cascading effect as even the non-final attempt candidates will seek parity. To be eligible to give the Civil Services (Preliminary) test, general category candidates can take six attempts till they are 32 years. In case of OBC candidates, there is relaxation upto nine attempts and 35 years. While in the case of SC/ST candidates, they can try as many times till they attain the age of 37.
On Thursday, a three-judge bench headed by Justice AM Khanwilkar lashed out at the Centre for not filing a “proper” affidavit. The bench remarked, “This affidavit says nothing. At whose level has this decision been taken?” The Court also expressed displeasure over the affidavit being filed as a routine one by an Under-Secretary in the DoPT. “It is meant to be a policy decision and a one-time exception. Such a decision should have been taken at the highest level. Your affidavit says nothing about it. Is this the way to file an affidavit?”
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju agreed to file a better affidavit within a day as the bench postponed the hearing on the petition to Friday. For the petitioners, senior advocate CU Singh informed the Court that they were hardly left with a choice but to write the examination as the Centre failed to take a decision prior to the examination on whether an extra chance will be available.
On September 30 last year, the apex court had allowed the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) to proceed with the October 4 examination but left the option of providing an extra chance to the discretion of the Centre. The Centre had informed the Court that this aspect was under consideration of the Government.
The DoPT affidavit of Monday was silent on how the decision was arrived at. The affidavit instead argued that the petition cannot be heard as the petitioners willingly sat for the examination and approached Supreme Court after the announcement of results. Any relief to the Petitioner, the affidavit said, “would also result in seriously prejudicing other candidates in the future.” Creating an exception for the 100-odd petitioners would have a “cascading effect detrimental to the overall functioning and level playing field necessary to be provided in any public examination system,” the Centre stated.
Over four lakh (0.4 million) candidates appeared in the CS (Preliminary) Examination-2020 under the COVID-19 guidelines that stipulated wearing of masks, use of sanitizers, social distancing, etc.
The petitioners, on the other hand, stated that having performed COVID-19 duties they were unevenly placed with other candidates. In their petition filed by advocate Anushree Kapadia, they stated, “During this pandemic, while everyone had a choice to save their attempt by leaving the exam in 2020, while taking care of their health, the chance candidates were given no choice at all and had to sit for the exam, despite the lack of opportunity to prepare.” In their rejoinder to the Centre’s affidavit, the petitioners raised questions over the manner in which the decision to deny them an extra chance was arrived at. They even highlighted that a junior ranking officer had filed the affidavit.
