Introduction:

In Joshi Umang Vijaykumar v. Union of India & Ors. (R/Special Civil Application No. 4534 of 2026), the Gujarat High Court dealt with a significant issue concerning the fairness and legality of the procedure governing the use of scribes by persons with disabilities in the UPSC Civil Services Examination. The petitioner, Joshi Umang Vijaykumar, appearing in person, approached the High Court after having exhausted all nine permissible attempts to clear the prestigious examination under the category of Persons with Benchmark Disabilities (PwBD-2), claiming that the existing system for availing the services of a scribe was inherently flawed and failed to provide a level playing field. He sought a compensatory attempt on the ground that systemic deficiencies had adversely affected his performance. The matter was heard by Justice Nirzar S Desai, who, after detailed consideration, dismissed the petition, observing that the petitioner, having participated in the examination multiple times under the same procedure without raising any contemporaneous challenge, could not be permitted to question the system after exhausting all attempts and failing to succeed.

Arguments by the Petitioner:

The petitioner, appearing as a party-in-person, presented his case with considerable emphasis on the alleged structural deficiencies in the scribe system applicable to visually impaired candidates in the UPSC Civil Services Examination. He contended that the procedure governing the engagement, qualification, and functioning of scribes suffered from inherent flaws, which ultimately compromised the principle of equality and fairness in competitive examinations.

A central plank of the petitioner’s argument was that the existing system did not ensure a level playing field among candidates with disabilities. He asserted that the mechanism for providing scribes lacked uniformity and transparency, leading to disparities in the assistance received by different candidates. According to him, such inconsistencies created an uneven competitive environment, thereby undermining the integrity of the examination process.

Interestingly, the petitioner admitted before the Court that despite being visually impaired, he had never availed the services of a scribe during any of his nine attempts. He clarified that this was a conscious personal decision, as he believed the system itself was flawed and that using a scribe under such a defective framework would not ensure fairness. He further argued that candidates who had cleared the examination with the assistance of scribes had done so under a system that was fundamentally defective, thereby raising questions about the legitimacy of such outcomes.

The petitioner also relied upon a memorandum dated 01.08.2025 issued by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Department of Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan), which purportedly introduced changes to the methodology and eligibility criteria for scribes. He contended that this memorandum was an acknowledgment by the authorities themselves that the earlier system suffered from lacunae. However, he pointed out that these revised guidelines had been kept in abeyance and were not implemented for the relevant examination cycle, meaning that the allegedly flawed system continued to operate.

On this basis, the petitioner argued that he had been subjected to an unfair examination process throughout his attempts and was therefore entitled to a compensatory attempt. He urged the Court to direct the authorities to grant him an additional opportunity to appear in the examination under a corrected and fair system.

Furthermore, the petitioner framed his plea as not merely a personal grievance but as an issue of larger public importance. He contended that the deficiencies in the scribe system affected all similarly situated candidates and required judicial intervention to ensure compliance with principles of equality and non-discrimination.

Arguments by the Respondents:

The respondents, representing the Union of India and associated authorities, opposed the petition and defended the existing framework governing the scribe facility in the UPSC examination. They argued that the procedure in place had been consistently applied over the years and was designed in accordance with applicable rules and guidelines to facilitate candidates with disabilities.

A key argument advanced by the respondents was that the petitioner had participated in the examination process fully aware of the existing rules and procedures. Having done so repeatedly over nine attempts, without raising any objection at the relevant time, he was estopped from challenging the same after having exhausted all permissible opportunities.

The respondents emphasized that the petitioner’s failure to clear the examination could not be attributed to any alleged defect in the system, particularly when he had consciously chosen not to avail the scribe facility. They argued that the petitioner could not claim prejudice arising from a system that he had voluntarily opted not to use.

It was further submitted that the petitioner’s plea lacked bona fides and appeared to be an afterthought, motivated by his inability to succeed in the examination. The respondents contended that the relief sought—namely, a compensatory attempt—was contrary to the established rules governing the examination, including the maximum number of attempts and age limits.

The respondents also addressed the memorandum dated 01.08.2025, pointing out that it was part of an ongoing effort by the government to improve and refine the system. They argued that the issuance of such a memorandum did not imply that the earlier system was illegal or unconstitutional. Rather, it reflected a policy decision to enhance existing procedures, which could not be used as a basis to invalidate past examinations or grant retrospective relief.

Additionally, the respondents submitted that the petitioner had already crossed the maximum age limit of 39 years and was no longer eligible to appear in the examination. Granting an additional attempt would not only violate the rules but also set an undesirable precedent, potentially opening the floodgates for similar claims by other unsuccessful candidates.

Court’s Judgment:

After hearing the parties and examining the record, the Gujarat High Court dismissed the petition, holding that it lacked merit both on factual and legal grounds. The Court’s reasoning was firmly rooted in principles of procedural fairness, estoppel, and judicial restraint.

At the outset, the Court noted that the petitioner had appeared in the UPSC Civil Services Examination on nine occasions, thereby exhausting the maximum number of attempts permissible under the rules. It further observed that throughout these attempts, the procedure governing the use of scribes had remained unchanged.

A crucial aspect of the Court’s reasoning was the petitioner’s own admission that he had never availed the services of a scribe. The Court found it difficult to accept that the petitioner could challenge the efficacy or fairness of a system that he had consciously chosen not to use. This, in the Court’s view, significantly weakened his claim of prejudice.

The Court also highlighted the inconsistency in the petitioner’s conduct. If he genuinely believed that the system was flawed, he could and should have challenged it at an earlier stage—either after his first attempt or upon realizing the alleged deficiencies. His decision to continue participating in the examination under the same framework, without raising any objection, indicated acquiescence to the existing procedure.

Justice Nirzar S Desai observed that allowing such a challenge at a belated stage would be contrary to settled legal principles. The Court emphasized that a litigant cannot approbate and reprobate—that is, accept a system when it suits him and challenge it only after failing to achieve the desired outcome.

The Court further remarked that the nature of the relief sought by the petitioner suggested that he was attempting to overhaul the entire system rather than addressing a specific personal grievance. This, according to the Court, went beyond the scope of the present proceedings.

With regard to the memorandum dated 01.08.2025, the Court acknowledged that the government had taken steps to address potential shortcomings in the system. However, it held that such policy developments could not be used to retrospectively challenge or invalidate the earlier procedure, particularly in the absence of any finding that the system was illegal or unconstitutional.

Importantly, the Court noted that the petitioner had already crossed the maximum age limit and was no longer eligible to appear in the examination. Granting a compensatory attempt in such circumstances would not only violate the rules but also disrupt the uniform application of eligibility criteria.

The Court concluded that the petition lacked merit and did not warrant judicial interference. It held that the petitioner, having failed to clear the examination despite multiple attempts and having acquiesced in the existing procedure, could not be permitted to challenge the same at a belated stage.

Accordingly, the petition was dismissed.