Sreya Kanugula
The Supreme Court had asked the Centre and the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for an explanation as to why another chance couldn’t be given to the civil service candidates aggrieved by COVID-19 when a similar relaxation has been extended in the past.
This came after the Central government had informed the SC on 25th January that a second chance wouldn’t be offered to UPSC candidates who couldn’t appear for last year’s attempt at the exam because of the pandemic situation.
The bench led by Justice AM Khanwilkar had been informed of the same on the 25th by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju.
According to the Asian News International news agency (ANI), on 28th January the clarification as to from which level was this decision taken by the Centre regarding this matter was enquired by the bench to the government.
The bench of Justice Khanwilkar had expressed its displeasure on no information being given in the filed affidavit as to which level this decision was taken and had not been pleased by the fact the signature on the affidavit was of an Under-Secretary’s.
Previously when the bench had comprised Justices B R Gavai and Krishna Murai as well, it had questioned the law officer to give the affidavit’s copy to Ms. Rachna (the civil services aspirant’s) counsel. The petitioner was the one responsible for moving the court to plead for a second chance to attempt the test once again.
Furthermore, Mr. Tushar Mehta, the Solicitor General had informed the bench previously the Centre had been considering providing an extra opportunity to those aspirants who couldn’t appear for their last attempt to take a shot at the exams for the civil services.
On September 30, 2020, the Top Court had refused to budge on not wanting to postpone the preliminary examination for the UPSC services which were held on the 4th of October, owing to the pandemic situation across the country and flooding situation in several parts of the same.
However, the court had given directions to both the Centre and the UPSC to give consideration to the grant of an extra opportunity to those candidates whose last attempt had been missed in 2020, with a reciprocal upper-age limit extension with regards to the former.
The bench had then been informed that a formal decision upon this matter could only be taken by the Centre’s Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) alone.