The Civil Service Examination, conducted annually by the Union Public Service Commission under the aegis of Department of Personnel and Training, is a unique opportunity for young and underprivileged to join coveted services like Indian Administrative Service, Indian Police Service, Indian Revenue Service, etc, and thereby gain the prospect of breaking the class barrier and move up the social ladder.
The examination has a fixed upper-age limit eligibility criterion for aspiring candidates. This, however, can be relaxed at the discretion of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) in appropriate cases, as has been done on many occasions in the past. Many such aspirants, who were last attempters on account of their age, could not write the exam because they were infected with Covid-19 disease and were placed under mandatory quarantine. What options did they have in this case? They faced a choice of either complying with the Covid-19 protocols and losing their last attempt or appearing for the exam and facing a penalty because the protocols were punitive.
The Supreme Court had duly acknowledged this difficulty in Vasireddy & Ors. vs Union Public Service Commission case in September 2020 and asked the Narendra Modi government to expeditiously explore the possibility of providing one more attempt to these candidates with a corresponding increase in the age limit.
The Modi government, in subsequent proceedings in the Abhishek Anand Sinha & Ors. vs Union Of India case, stated that it was duly considering the grievances of such aspirants and working towards providing them age-relaxation for appearing in the Civil Services Exam 2021.
The sentiment, however, was not the same towards those aspirants who were able to appear in the exam but sought an additional attempt on the grounds that their exam preparation was disrupted due to the pandemic and lockdown measures. The government, in the case of aspirants who had filed a writ petition in Rachna & Ors. vs Union Of India case in February 2021, stated that no age relaxation would be given as such candidates have already taken a chance by appearing in the exam. The Supreme Court, too, dismissed this petition. Nevertheless, the government reiterated that aspirants who could not appear in the exam on account of Covid-19 will be eligible for an extra chance.
Also read: Why UPSC is insisting on holding civil service exam on 4 October despite aspirants’ protests
Modi govt’s U-turn on UPSC exam
Inexplicably, the Civil Service Examination Rules, which came out in February 2021, did not provide any age relaxation.
The aspirants immediately approached the Supreme Court through two writ petitions demanding the government fulfil its promise. However, the Modi government, in the most shocking manner, took refuge under the judgment pronounced in the Rachna case and stated that the government was not obliged to provide age relaxation as it covered the case of even non-attempters.
The complete U-turn in the Modi government’s stance was insensitive as it paid no heed to the fact that these aspirants were forced to abstain from availing their last attempt by the government’s very own policy. The Supreme Court, despite sharing sympathy with the cause of aspirants, stayed away from giving any direction. Instead, it put the ball in the government’s court and permitted the aspirants to file representation with the DoPT and asked it to consider their case leniently.
However, the Modi government rejected the representations of the aspirants without even caring to provide any plausible justification.
The government was able to protect the fundamental Right to Life [Article 21] of the non-Covid candidates by restricting the entry of Covid-19 exposed/positive candidates at the examination centres. It was also able to protect the non-Covid candidates’ fundamental Right to Equal Opportunity in public employment [Article 16(1)] by maintaining a conducive environment at exam centres, where they were able to exercise their right to appear in the exam without any fear of contracting the deadly virus. However, in this process, it disregarded the rights of Covid-19-infected aspirants. This ill-conceived policy led to a very absurd situation where one set of aspirants’ rights were conserved at the expense of the rights of others.
This was most significant in the case of last-attempters, a vulnerable class of aspirants in this scheme of exams; the first in the line of fire. The government, which is supposed to be a welfare state, should have at least thought about them while making a decision. It has completely ignored the principle of vulnerability — an important factor while designing any policy.
Also read: UPSC changed many exam rules in 10 yrs. Now, MPs want to know how they impacted civil service
Lessons from state govts and other bodies
The Modi government ought to have taken a cue from state governments (like Rajasthan and Madhya Pradesh) which remained mindful of the ground realities and decided to strike a harmony between Article 21 and Article 16(1) by making special arrangements for Covid-19 positive candidates to appear in their respective state service examinations.
In the alternative, the Centre could have provided a compensatory attempt as an extraordinary measure. This has been done on many occasions. For instance, the Joint Admission Board (JAB) in charge of Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) admissions has allowed students registered to appear in Joint Entrance Examination (Advanced) 2020 to re-appear in 2021 exams, as a one-time measure. Similarly, Odisha and Tripura provided a compensatory attempt with the corresponding age relaxation in their respective State Service Examinations. Doing something similar would have allowed the Modi government to show its magnanimity in difficult times and also avoid confusion.
But unreasonable actions have now resulted in a loss of faith in the government’s ability to keep its word and frame a practical, predictable and fair policy. It has also set a bad precedent. People are now more likely to hide their condition and status in respect of Covid-19 infection when faced with a similar situation in future.
Also read: SC rejects plea seeking extra chance for UPSC aspirants who exhausted last attempt in 2020
Litigation against injustice
The government, by its inaction, has created a breeding ground for more litigation. This is evident from the latest case before the Supreme Court, where the petitioners were not able to appear in the second stage of the UPSC examination (Mains) on account of being infected with Covid-19. It is apparent that many more cases of similar nature would be filed by aspirants in the context of various examinations at different stages.
The Supreme Court is not likely to give any direction to the Modi government because it is not inclined to set any judicial precedent that can open a Pandora’s box of litigation. Nevertheless, one can still have a sanguine hope that the government will look at the case with a more pragmatic and sympathetic attitude. It must take into consideration the plight of the unfortunate aspirants. Furthermore, it must remain mindful of the fact that Covid-19 is still here. The risk of deadly mutation is always looming. Therefore, it’s a necessity to frame a robust policy that can address the issue in its entirety.
If the Modi government continues to hold its unreasonable stance, it ought to compensate aspirants for costing them their time, money and a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
Atul Agarwal is an advocate at the Supreme Court of India who had represented the petitioners in the referred cases. Abhishek Anand Sinha was a civil service aspirant and lead Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1130 of 2020 & W.P.(C) No. 434 of 2021.
Views are personal.
(Edited by Srinjoy Dey)