Last-Minute twist in SI Exam Dispute: SC limits relief to One Candidate in Special Sitting

On Friday, in an unusual special sitting, the Supreme Court recalibrated its earlier direction in the Rajasthan Sub-Inspector recruitment controversy, restricting the benefit of provisional appearance in the upcoming exam exclusively to the petitioner. The modification, issued just ahead of the April 5 examination, reflects the Court’s conscious effort to strike a balance between individual relief and the risk of large-scale administrative disruption affecting lakhs of candidates.

The controversy stems from the 2021 Sub-Inspector recruitment process in Rajasthan, which was clouded by allegations of question paper leakage, eventually leading to the cancellation being recommended and challenged in court. A fresh recruitment notification issued in July 2025 sought to address the fallout, including provisions for age relaxation for earlier candidates. However, disputes arose over the actual implementation of such relaxations, prompting litigation before the Rajasthan High Court. While a Single Judge granted interim relief allowing certain candidates to participate, the Division Bench stayed that relief, leaving candidates in uncertainty.

With the High Court reserving judgment but not pronouncing it before the scheduled examination, the Petitioner approached the Apex Court seeking urgent intervention. Initially, the Court allowed the Petitioner and similarly placed candidates to appear provisionally. This, however, was strongly opposed by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission, which highlighted the logistical scale, over 7 lakh candidates across multiple centres, and alleged that relevant facts had not been fully disclosed before the Court.

The Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma emphasised that interim judicial orders must remain sensitive to ground realities and institutional limitations. The Court took note of the potential chaos that could ensue if relief were extended indiscriminately, particularly in a mass recruitment exercise involving extensive administrative arrangements. It observed that “the order passed by us yesterday ought to be modified,” and consequently narrowed the scope of its earlier direction. The Bench also signalled disapproval of attempts to seek wider relief beyond the petitioner’s individual case, remarking in substance that litigants cannot seek orders on behalf of an undefined class without proper adjudication. Importantly, the Court anchored its reasoning in the fact that the Rajasthan High Court is yet to deliver its judgment on the core dispute, and any expansive interim relief at this stage could prejudice ongoing proceedings.

Accordingly, the Court confined the benefit strictly to the petitioner while leaving the door open for others to seek appropriate remedies depending on future developments.

Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.