Seniority Must Be Calculated From the Date of Initial Appointment, Not Regularization: Madras High Court Rules Section 319 Cr.P.C. | Mere Association Not Enough for Criminal Liability: Karnataka HC Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Per Kanal Compensation for Land Acquired for Nangal-Talwara Railway Line, Dismisses Railway’s Appeal No Work No Pay Principle Not Applicable: Orissa High Court Orders Reinstatement and Full Back Wages for Wrongfully Terminated Lecturer No Assault, No Obstruction, Only Words Exchanged: Bombay High Court Quashes Charges of Obstruction Against Advocates Under Section 353 IPC Matrimonial Offences Can Be Quashed Even if Non-Compoundable, When Genuine Compromise Is Reached: J&K HC Plaintiff Entitled to Partition, But Must Contribute Redemption Share to Defendant: Delhi High Court Clarifies Subrogation Rights in Mortgage Redemption Labeling Someone A 'Rowdy' Without Convictions Infringes Personal Liberty And Reputation: Kerala High Court P&H High Court Denies Pensionary Benefits for Work-Charged Employee's Widow; Declares Work-Charged Service Not Eligible for ACP or Pension Benefits Acquittal is Acquittal: Rajasthan High Court Orders Appointment of Candidate Denied Job Over Past FIR At The Bail Stage, Culpability Is Not To Be Decided; Allegations Must Be Tested During Trial: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in SCST Supreme Court Dismisses Challenge to "Secular" and "Socialist" Additions in Constitution Preamble Supreme Court Rejects Res Judicata in Land Allotment Case: Fresh Cause of Action Validates Public Interest Litigation Public Resources Are Not Privileges for the Few: Supreme Court Declares Preferential Land Allotments to Elites Unconstitutional Past antecedents alone cannot justify denial of bail: Kerala High Court Grants Bail Revenue Records Alone Cannot Prove Ownership: Madras High Court Dismisses Temple's Appeal for Injunction Humanitarian Grounds Cannot Undermine Investigation: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Interim Bail in ₹200 Crore Scholarship Scam The Power Under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 CPC is Drastic and Extraordinary; Should Not Be Exercised Mechanically or Merely for the Asking: Calcutta High Court Telangana High Court Strikes Down Section 10-A: Upholds Transparency in Public Employment Absence of Homogeneous Mixing and Procedural Deficiencies Vitiate NDPS Conviction: Punjab and Haryana High Court Business Disputes Cannot Be Given Criminal Color: Patna High Court Quashes Complaint in Trademark Agreement Case Gujarat High Court Appoints Wife as Guardian of Comatose Husband, Calls for Legislative Framework Standard of Proof in Professional Misconduct Requires 'Higher Threshold' but Below 'Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Delhi High Court Imprisonment Cannot Bar Education: Bombay HC Allows UAPA Accused to Pursue LL.B. High Court Acquits Accused in Double Murder Case, Asserts ‘Suspicion Cannot Replace Proof’ Long separation and irreparable breakdown of marriage must be read as cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Regulation 101 Applies to All Aided Institutions, Including Minority Ones, Says Allahabad High Court Fraud Unravels All Judicial Acts : Jharkhand High Court Orders Demolition of Unauthorized Constructions in Ratan Heights Case Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Validate a Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds 1997 Will Over 2000 Will

Supreme Court Orders Re-Medical for UPSC Candidate 9 Years Later, Warns Decision Is ‘Not a Precedent’

08 September 2024 12:08 PM

By: sayum


The Supreme Court of India has granted limited relief to a petitioner who missed a crucial re-medical examination during the 2014 Civil Services Examination process. In a judgment delivered on August 2, 2024, the Court allowed the petitioner, Rakshit Shivam Prakash, a re-medical examination but denied his request for service allocation and consequential benefits. The Court invoked its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to provide this exceptional relief while making it clear that the decision would not serve as a precedent for future cases.

The petitioner, Rakshit Shivam Prakash, qualified in the Prelims, Mains, and Interview stages of the 2014 Civil Services Examination. However, he was declared "temporarily unfit" due to a Body Mass Index (BMI) of 31.75, which exceeded the prescribed standard of 30 BMI. Despite being scheduled for a re-medical test on July 14, 2015, Prakash did not attend, believing the selection process was complete when his name did not appear in the final result published on July 4, 2015. Later, when a reserve list was published on January 19, 2016, Prakash found that candidates ranked lower than him were allocated services, prompting him to seek legal redress.

The Court acknowledged the petitioner’s oversight in not attending the re-medical test on July 14, 2015. It noted that while Prakash’s assumption that the process was complete was unfortunate, he still missed an opportunity that could have been crucial for his selection.

The judgment referenced the case of Mr. K. Rajashekhara Reddy, who was similarly placed but later granted relief by the Supreme Court after a re-medical examination. The Court found a "commonality" in both cases but also noted the unique circumstances of each. Prakash, who was 35 years old and had exhausted all attempts for the Civil Services Examination, sought similar relief after learning about Reddy's case.

The Court reasoned that while it was inclined to provide relief, it could not overlook the considerable time lapse and the petitioner’s initial failure to avail the re-medical opportunity. Therefore, the Court exercised its powers under Article 142 of the Constitution to allow a re-medical examination, emphasizing that this was an exceptional decision made to do complete justice in this specific case.

Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha remarked, "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."

The Supreme Court’s decision grants the petitioner a second chance at the medical examination, nine years after the initial process. However, it denied his request for retrospective allocation to the 2014 Civil Services batch, stating that any potential appointment would not include seniority or other benefits associated with the 2014 batch. The judgment underscores the Court’s willingness to intervene in unique cases while maintaining a clear boundary on the scope of its rulings to prevent them from setting general precedents.

Date of Decision: August 2, 2024

Rakshit Shivam Prakash vs. Union of India and Anr.
 

Similar News