Supreme Court Limits Interim Relief in Rajasthan SI Recruitment Case to Petitioner Alone

April 3, 2026 : The Supreme Court of India on Friday modified its earlier interim order in the Rajasthan Sub-Inspector recruitment matter, restricting the benefit of appearing in the upcoming examination solely to the petitioner, Suraj Mal Meena.

A Bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma held a special sitting on the occasion of Good Friday to revisit its earlier direction. The Court had previously permitted the petitioner along with similarly placed candidates to appear in the examination scheduled for April 5, 2026. This relief has now been confined only to the petitioner, citing administrative constraints and the pendency of related appeals before the Rajasthan High Court.

The dispute arises from the Rajasthan Police Sub-Inspector/Platoon Commander Recruitment Examination, 2021, which was challenged over allegations of paper leak and large-scale malpractice. A Single Judge of the High Court had quashed the entire recruitment process, noting the involvement of organised groups in compromising the examination. This decision was subsequently stayed by a Division Bench.

The matter reached the apex court through a Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court had earlier directed the High Court to decide the pending appeals within a fixed timeframe and ordered maintenance of status quo.

In parallel proceedings, candidates sought age relaxation under a fresh recruitment notification issued in 2025. While interim permission to participate was granted by a Single Judge, the same was stayed by the Division Bench, leading to further litigation before the Supreme Court.

In the present proceedings, the petitioner sought permission to appear in the upcoming examination on the ground that the High Court had concluded hearings but had not yet delivered its judgment. Although provisional relief was initially extended more broadly, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission opposed the move, arguing that extending such relief to a large number of candidates would disrupt examination logistics involving lakhs of aspirants. It also contended that material facts had not been fully disclosed.

Accepting these concerns, the Court exercised its discretionary jurisdiction to limit the relief strictly to the petitioner. It clarified that the rights of other candidates would depend on the final outcome of the pending proceedings before the High Court.

The Court further observed that affected candidates remain free to pursue appropriate legal remedies before competent forums, depending on future developments.