SC modifies order, allows only one aspirant to appear in Rajasthan SI recruitment exam

The Supreme Court on April 3 revised its earlier direction and limited permission to appear in the Rajasthan sub-inspector and platoon commander recruitment examination to a single candidate, instead of 713 applicants.

A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Satish Chandra Sharma convened on a holiday to hear the Rajasthan Public Service Commission’s plea seeking modification of its April 2 order.

The RPSC is set to conduct the recruitment examination for 1,015 posts on April 5 and 6, with more than 7.70 lakh candidates expected to take part.

The commission had moved the apex court, claiming that certain material facts were not placed before it earlier. Acting on this application, the court altered its previous directive that had asked the RPSC to issue provisional admit cards to 713 candidates, including petitioner Suraj Mal Meena.

On April 2, while hearing Meena’s petition, the bench had granted interim relief to him and 712 others, permitting them to sit for the examination. It had also directed that their results should be withheld until the Rajasthan High Court delivered its judgment on two related petitions.

However, after considering fresh submissions by the RPSC’s counsel, the bench on Friday restricted the relief to Meena alone, withdrawing the broader permission granted earlier.

The court clarified that other affected candidates, who are not parties before it, may move the Rajasthan High Court and seek permission to reappear if the pending decision directs the commission to conduct another examination.

The recruitment process had earlier been cancelled following allegations of widespread irregularities and malpractice. Subsequently, the RPSC announced a fresh examination but did not grant age relaxation to candidates who had crossed the eligibility limit.

This triggered legal challenges before the Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court, where a single judge initially allowed candidates to appear provisionally. The order was later stayed by a division bench, prompting the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court.