Dismissal Of Suit For Default Doesn't Bar Fresh Partition Suit As Cause Of Action Is Recurring; Second Rejection Of Plaint Application Barred By Res Judicata: Telangana High Court Married Daughter Entitled To Appointment As Fair Price Shop Dealer On Compassionate Grounds; Marital Status No Bar: Allahabad High Court Finding Of Title Cannot Be Recorded In Injunction Simpliciter Suit Absent Specific Pleadings & Issues: Andhra Pradesh High Court Conviction Not A Condition Precedent For Confiscation Of Vehicle Used In Forest Offence: Bombay High Court Advocate’s Professional Call To Client No Proof Of Conspiracy; Sterling Evidence Like CCTV Can Justify Quashing FIR: Gujarat High Court Revenue Entries Changed Without Notifying Affected Parties Are Void; High Court Can Upset Perverse Findings In Second Appeal: Himachal Pradesh HC Mandatory Injunction For Removing Sunshades Or Closing Windows Cannot Be Granted If No Encroachment Is Proved: Karnataka High Court Employer Cannot Resume Work Through Third Parties Until 30-Day Period For Contractor’s Post-Termination Compliance Expires: Madras High Court Circumstantial Chain Fails If Prosecution Doesn't Rule Out Accidental Death: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Two In Murder Case Wife’s Status As Practicing Lawyer Or Professional Qualification No Absolute Bar To Grant Of Interim Maintenance: Orissa High Court Legally Wedded Wife And Second Wife Entitled To Equal Share In Family Pension If Second Wife Was Nominated & Cared For Deceased: Andhra Pradesh High Court Specific Performance Suit Filed At The Fag End Of Limitation Reflects Lack Of Readiness And Willingness: Supreme Court Specific Performance Cannot Be Granted If Plaintiff Fails To Prove Financial Readiness At Relevant Time Of Transaction: Supreme Court MACT |Just Compensation For Deceased Professional Students Must Reflect Future Career Trajectory: Supreme Court Stationary Vehicle Parked At Night Without Warning Signs Poses Evident Hazard; SC Refuses To Reduce Compensation For CA Student’s Death Motor Accident Claims: 100% Loss Of Earning Capacity To Be Considered If Amputation Prevents Manual Worker From Pursuing Sole Avocation: Supreme Court Substantive Amendments Rendering Land Transfers 'Void' Are Prospective; Cannot Invalidate Decades-Old Sale Deeds: Supreme Court Registered Sale Deed Carries Formidable Presumption Of Genuineness; Minor Witness Discrepancies Cannot Invalidate Decades-Old Document: Supreme Court Mere Breach Of Sale Agreement Not Cheating Unless Dishonest Intent Existed From Inception: Telangana High Court Mining Lease Applications For First Schedule Minerals Deemed 'Disposed Of' Once Recommended & Approved Prior To 2015: Supreme Court Prolonged Incarceration Under NDPS Act Militates Against Article 21; Conditional Liberty Must Override Section 37 Embargo: Supreme Court Perpetual Minor Status Of Deity Does Not Exempt It From Limitation Laws; Condonation Requires 'Sufficient Cause': Orissa High Court State Cannot 'Approbate And Reprobate' Bravery: MP High Court Mandates Out-Of-Turn Promotion For Cop Who Rescued Truck From 200-Foot Gorge Drugs Controller Can Regulate Misleading Discount Boards In Medical Shops; Right To Business Not A Shield For Deception: Kerala High Court Courts Cannot Direct Parliament To Adopt Rotational Reservation For Assembly Seats; Section 9(1)(c) Delimitation Act Valid: Allahabad High Court Official To Pay Rs 20,000 Costs From Own Pocket: Andhra Pradesh High Court Holds Municipal Commissioner Liable For Failing To Take Court Orders To 'Logical End' IPC Sections 406 & 420 Cannot Co-exist On Same Set Of Facts; Substantial Compliance Enough For Section 156(3) CrPC Affidavit: Kerala High Court Family Courts Duty-Bound To Declare Marital Status In Mutual Consent Muslim Divorces Even If Wife Admits Divorce: Gujarat High Court Allottee’s Right To Interest For Delayed Possession Under Section 18 RERA Is Absolute; Not Fettered By Section 55 Contract Act: Bombay High Court Sentencing Not A Purely Retributive Exercise Divorced From Factual Matrix: Supreme Court Reduces Jail Term Of Man Who Forged Bail Documents

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.
 

Latest Legal News