Court Must Conduct Inquiry on Mental Competency Before Appointing Legal Guardian - Punjab and Haryana High Court Right to Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Due to the Sentiments of Society: Kerala High Court Grants Bail in Eve Teasing Case Supreme Court Extends Probation to 70-Year-Old in Decades-Old Family Feud Case Authorized Railway Agents Cannot Be Criminally Prosecuted for Unauthorized Procurement And Supply Of Railway Tickets: Supreme Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Arbitrarily: Supreme Court Upholds Rights of Accused For Valid Arbitration Agreement and Party Consent Necessary: Supreme Court Declares Ex-Parte Arbitration Awards Null and Void NDPS | Lack of Homogeneous Mixing, Inventory Preparation, and Magistrate Certification Fatal to Prosecution's Case: Punjab & Haryana High Court "May Means May, and Shall Means Shall": Supreme Court Clarifies Appellate Court's Discretion Under Section 148 of NI Act Punjab & Haryana High Court Orders Re-Evaluation of Coal Block Tender, Cites Concerns Over Arbitrary Disqualification Dying Declarations Must Be Beyond Doubt to Sustain Convictions: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Accused in Burn Injury Murder Case No Legally Enforceable Debt Proven: Madras High Court Dismisses Petition for Special Leave to Appeal in Cheque Bounce Case Decisional Autonomy is a Core Part of the Right to Privacy : Kerala High Court Upholds LGBTQ+ Rights in Landmark Habeas Corpus Case Consent of a Minor Is No Defense Under the POCSO Act: Himachal Pradesh High Court Well-Known Marks Demand Special Protection: Delhi HC Cancels Conflicting Trademark for RPG Industrial Products High Court Acquits Accused Due to ‘Golden Thread’ Principle: Gaps in Medical Evidence and Unexplained Time Frame Prove Decisive Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown; Awards ₹12 Crore Permanent Alimony Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case VAT | Notice Issued Beyond Limitation Period Cannot Reopen Assessment: Kerala High Court Fishing Inquiry Not Permissible Under Section 91, Cr.P.C.: High Court Quashes Trial Court’s Order Directing CBI to Produce Unrelied Statements and Case Diary Vague and Omnibus Allegations Cannot Sustain Criminal Prosecution in Matrimonial Disputes: Calcutta High Court High Court Emphasizes Assessee’s Burden of Proof in Unexplained Cash Deposits Case Effective, efficient, and expeditious alternative remedies have been provided by the statute: High Court Dismisses Petition for New Commercial Electricity Connection Maintenance Must Reflect Financial Realities and Social Standards: Madhya Pradesh High Court Upholds Interim Maintenance in Domestic Violence Land Classified as Agricultural Not Automatically Exempt from SARFAESI Proceedings: High Court Permissive Use Cannot Ripen into Right of Prescriptive Easement: Kerala High Court High Court Slams Procedural Delays, Orders FSL Report in Assault Case to Prevent Miscarriage of Justice Petitioner Did Not Endorse Part-Payments on Cheque; Section 138 NI Act Not Attracted: Madras High Court Minority Christian Schools Not Bound by Rules of 2018; Disciplinary Proceedings Can Continue: High Court of Calcutta Lack of Independent Witnesses Undermines Prosecution: Madras High Court Reaffirms Acquittal in SCST Case Proceedings Before Tribunal Are Summary in Nature and It Need Not Be Conducted Like Civil Suits: Kerala High Court Affirms Award in Accident Claim Affidavit Not Sufficient to Transfer Title Punjab and Haryana High Court

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