Sharma’s story revolves around strict rules of the Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Competitive Examination) Regulations, 1955, which say a candidate is allowed four shots at the annual Civil Services Examinations (CSE). Even a mere appearance at any stage of the exam, be it prelims or mains, can make it an “attempt” as per the rules.

Sharma got into a fix when his “fourth and last attempt” to clear the UPSC exams on October 21, 2005 was cut short by a road accident — an incident that he calls an “act of God causing undue hardship”. He was on way back after completing his preliminary papers that day: a multiple fracture on right leg meant Sharma could not take the main examinations scheduled the next day.

He applied for the CSE again the following year, armed with a Delhi High Court order dated January 13, 2006 directing UPSC to not reject his candidature for having already exhausted four attempts. It wa a smooth sailing this time, but the UPSC convinced the High Court, and later the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), that Sharma was not eligible for recruitment as a civil servant.

In June 2008, the Tribunal decided that Sharma had already exhausted his four attempts — in 2001, 2003, 2004 and 2005 — and, therefore, should not have been allowed to take his “fifth attempt” in 2006.

Filing his appeal before a Division Bench led by Justice Madan B Lokur, Sharma’s counsel R K Saini argued that his attempt to clear the exams in 2005 had failed due to an accident that was “beyond his control”.

“His participation in the examination could not be treated as an attempt to sit in the examination,” Saini contended. “My client suffered a serious accident which made it impossible for him to appear in the main examination. This was an act of God and my client cannot be made to suffer for this.” The Bench, though making a point to observe that its sympathies were with Sharma, was quick to stress that the UPSC’s examination rules were not flexible, and if made so would result in a “chaotic situation which even the UPSC may not be able to handle”.

“There is no doubt that the petitioner (Sharma) actually met with an accident and could not complete his CSE main examination for reasons beyond his control,” the Bench said in a recent judgment. “But that by itself cannot entitle him to a waiver of rules and regulations governing such examinations, particularly since there is no such power of relaxation available with UPSC.”

Accepting the UPSC’s stand that Sharma’s attempt in 2006 was a fifth one, the court said, “There can be myriad reasons for which a candidate may not be able to complete his preliminary or main examinations. It could be illness, accident or any other reasons beyond the control of a candidate.”