Supreme Court Allows Provisional Entry for Rajasthan SI Exam, Holds Results

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma passed the order while hearing an application filed by Suraj Mal Meena.

During the hearing, Senior Advocate P B Suresh, along with Advocate Mayank Jain appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, reserved on January 19, is still awaited, whereas the examination is scheduled to be held on April 5.

They argued that if the petitioner is not allowed to appear, he would suffer irreparable prejudice. Accepting the submissions advanced by Senior Advocate P B Suresh and Advocate Mayank Jain, the Court permitted the petitioner to appear in the examination provisionally and directed the examining authority to issue the necessary admit card.

The Court further clarified that this relief would extend to similarly placed candidates who had participated in the earlier 2021 recruitment process. It directed that all such aspirants must present themselves before the examining authority with a copy of the order by April 4, 2026, for issuance of admit cards.

At the same time, the bench made it clear that no equity would accrue to any candidate merely by appearing in the examination, and importantly, the results of such candidates shall not be declared until the High Court pronounces its judgment. The application was accordingly disposed of.

The petitioner was represented by Senior Advocate P B Suresh along with Advocates Mayank Jain, Madhur Jain, Aakriti Dhawan, Arpit Goel, Kartik Yadav, and AOR Nikilesh Ramachandran. On behalf of the respondents, Additional Advocate General Shiv Mangal Sharma appeared along with AOR Nidhi Jaswal and Advocate Saubhagya Sundriyal.

The case stems from a plea filed before the Supreme Court seeking postponement of the Rajasthan SI / Platoon Commander Recruitment Examination 2025, which is scheduled for April 5 and 6, 2026. The petition, filed by Surajmal Meena, sought deferment of the examination by at least four weeks. The main grievance raised in the plea relates to the age limit criteria, with the petitioner arguing that several candidates have been excluded due to a lack of age relaxation.

It was pointed out that while applications were initially accepted following an interim order of a Single Bench, the Division Bench later stayed that order, creating uncertainty for aspirants.

The plea also highlighted that conducting the examination before a final decision on eligibility issues would cause irreparable harm to candidates who may become eligible if relief is eventually granted. It was therefore urged that postponing the examination was necessary to ensure fairness and to prevent any future relief from becoming ineffective.

The controversy traces back to the 2021 SI recruitment process, which was cancelled amid allegations of paper leaks and irregularities.

Although a Single Bench of the High Court had quashed the recruitment, the Division Bench later stayed that decision, leaving the matter unresolved. In this backdrop, candidates approached the Supreme Court seeking interim protection before the conduct of the fresh examination. With the present order, the Supreme Court has allowed provisional participation while safeguarding the outcome until judicial clarity is achieved.

- ANI