The petition, filed by lawyer Tanya Shri, submitted that the cancellation of candidacy by letter dated March 12, 2021, is “arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory between similarly situated candidates and is therefore in violation of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution.” India, 1950 ”.
According to one case, the final examination of the applicant’s B.Tech course was delayed as a result of the national lockdown due to the COVID-19 epidemic. The test was conducted at the end of September 2020 and the results were announced after November 2020. In October 2020, the UPSC appealed for preliminary examinations to be submitted as soon as the results were announced. Applicants were required to submit proof of eligibility tests by November 11, 2020.
Since her university results were not declared by that time, the petitioner requested UPSC to allow her to appear for the Mains exam on an undertaking. Her university results came out on November 28, 2020, and he was declared pass. She was later issued a provisional certificate by the university. In January 2021, she appeared in the Mains exam.
However, the petitioner submits that after appearing for the Civil Services Main Examination, he received a letter canceling her candidature on the ground that she had not submitted proof of the required educational qualification.
“It is noteworthy that the petitioner had given an undertaking to Respondent No. 1 that as soon as the results are published, he would submit the proof of qualifying examination. Consequently, she has provided Respondent No. 1 with her required degree certificate but It is not considered from the number of respondents.
The petition goes on to contend that the original copy of the documents is required only when candidates appear for the personality test. Therefore, the result was declared after 2020 without exclusion to the petitioner keeping in view the fact that “due to the unprecedented situation arising out of Covid-19, the reeks of unfairness and genetic arbitrariness, resulting in a denial of equal opportunity”. is done.
It has also been argued that the principle of estoppel would apply in this case as the petitioner was issued an admission letter on the basis of the undertaking, and hence, the right to be considered for a personality test could not be denied
In the light of the above, the petition states that the cancellation of the candidate would by no means waste the entire year of the petitioner, and the right to be considered for the personality test would amount to grave injustice.