Full Judgment Text
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
2024 INSC 569
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 890/2023
RAKSHIT SHIVAM PRAKASH …PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. …RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
1. Aspiring employment in the Union Public Service Commission
(‘UPSC’), the petitioner applied and participated in the selection process
of the Civil Services Examination 2014, which commenced with a
notification by the UPSC on 31.05.2014. The petitioner qualified in
Prelims, Mains and also the Interview. He was called to attend the
medical examination, conducted by the Central Standing Medical
Board on 29.04.2015. After the medical, he was declared to be
‘temporarily unfit’, due to his Body Mass Index (BMI) being 31.75,
which is higher than the prescribed standard of 30 BMI. The petitioner
duly applied for a re-medical test which was scheduled to take place on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Indu Marwah
Date: 2024.08.02
17:09:11 IST
Reason:
14.07.2015.
1
2. On 04.07.2015, UPSC published the final result, and the
petitioner’s name did not appear in the list. It is the petitioner’s case
that he concluded that the selection process is complete upon
publication of this final result and having lost hope, he did not appear
for the re-medical test scheduled for 14.07.2015.
3. The most amazing things in life happen right at the moment you
are about to give up hope. On 19.01.2016, a consolidated reserve list
of 126 candidates was published for filling up the remaining posts. The
rd
petitioner was shown to have secured rank 93 in this list. At the same
th
time, candidates ranked below the petitioner on that list, up till 97
rank, were allocated service. With this publication, his hope became a
claim of right.
4. Petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna
seeking directions to be treated at par with the other candidates in the
list dated 19.01.2016. The Tribunal dismissed petitioner’s Application
by relying on its own decision in the case of one Mr. K. Rajashekhara
Reddy, who was similarly placed as even he could not qualify the
medical. Questioning the decision of the Tribunal, the petitioner filed
a Writ Petition before the High Court of Patna.
5. During the pendency of this Writ Petition, case of Mr. K.
Rajashekhara Reddy was allowed by the High Court, Telangana on
2
06.04.2021. Union of India challenged the judgment of the High Court
in a Special Leave Petition, where this Court by order dated 14.06.2022
directed re-medical. In the re-medical, Mr. K. Rajashekhara Reddy was
found to be fit for all services. Thus, this Court in exercise of its plenary
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, directed
consideration of K. Rajashekhara Reddy for appointment, with all
consequential benefits excepting salary for the period he didn’t work.
6. On strength of the above decision, dated 14.06.2022, the
petitioner withdrew his pending Writ Petition before the High Court of
Patna in order to make a representation before the Respondent
Authorities instead, to give him similar treatment.
7. Consequently, petitioner’s representation was met by a reply by
the Department of Personnel and Training stating, that the decision of
the Supreme Court dated 14.06.2022 upholds the stand of the
Government regarding prescription of a time limit for medical re-
examination of ‘temporarily unfit’ candidates. As per the Civil Services
Examination Rules, 2014 the status of the petitioner is confirmed as
‘Unfit for all Services’.
8. It is pursuant to the above line of facts that the petitioner has filed
the present Writ Petition under Article 32, seeking –
3
i) a direction to the respondents for allocation of service to
the petitioner with all consequential benefits against the
Civil Services Examination, 2014; at par with other
similarly placed candidates in the Reserve List dated
19.01.2016, and
ii) a direction for conduct of a re-medical examination, if
required.
9. We heard Mr. M.L.Varma, Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner and Mr. VVV Pattabhiram, Advocate for the respondents. We
have entertained this petition under Article 32 in August 2023 and the
case was adjourned from time to time. Mr. Pattabhiram appeared for
the Union after taking instructions and has also filed a counter affidavit
opposing the prayer.
10. At the outset we reject the prayer (i) made by the petitioner for
allocation of service and consequential benefits against Civil Services
Examination, 2014. In so far as the alternative prayer for a direction
for conducting re-medical examination is concerned the position on
fact and law is as follows.
11. Though the petitioner was declared to be ‘temporarily unfit’ after
the medical examination dated 29.04.2015, he was entitled to a re-
examination which was slated to take place on 14.07.2015. It is an
4
unfortunate situation that the petitioner assumed that he had lost out
and overlooked the chance that was provided to him on 14.07.2015,
when he was called for re-examination.
12. When he realised that identically placed candidates, who
appeared in consolidated list on 19.01.2016 and were less meritorious
than him, were allotted service, the petitioner approached the Tribunal
which did not entertain his petition only for the reason that Mr. K.
Rajashekhara Reddy’s case was already decided and dismissed.
13. The case of Mr. K. Rajashekhara Reddy may not be identical but
life being what it is, one commonality is in the fact that Mr. K.
Rajashekhara Reddy also missed the medical re-examination and his
prayer, similar to that of the Writ Petitioner, was accepted by the High
Court; and this Court did not interfere with the Order while exercising
jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. Further,
when Mr. K. Rajashekhara Reddy was granted relief by this Court, he
was 38 years old and had exhausted all his attempts for Civil Services
Exams. The petitioner is 35 years old, and he too has exhausted all his
attempts.
14. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we
consider it appropriate to grant a limited relief. This will be to direct the
5
respondents to re-schedule the re-medical test that was to be
conducted on 14.07.2015, which the petitioner unfortunately missed.
15. At the same time considering the fact that the original re-medical
examination was to happen in 2015 and almost a decade has passed
by, we direct that in the event the petitioner qualifies in the medical re-
examination, he shall neither claim appointment in the 2014 Batch,
nor will he be entitled to seniority in the Batch in which he could be
appointed. We also clarify that, upon clearing the re-medical, if he is to
be given appointment, his services shall commence from the date of the
appointment. This is an exceptional case in which we have exercised
our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India to do
complete justice and as such the present decision shall not be treated
as a precedent in any case.
16. For the reason stated above, we partly allow this Writ Petition and
direct the respondents to call the petitioner for a re-medical test within
a period of four weeks. There shall be no order as to costs.
………………………………....J.
[ ]
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA
………………………………....J.
[ PANKAJ MITHAL ]
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 02, 2024.
6