The Supreme Court held a special sitting on 3 April 2026 and modified its earlier order that had permitted the petitioner and similarly placed candidates to appear for the Sub Inspector Police/Platoon Commander Recruitment Examination (2025) in Rajasthan. The revised order now restricts the benefit only to the petitioner, Suraj Mal Meena . Key Developments Earlier, the Court had allowed all candidates who had applied in 2021 to sit for the exam scheduled on 5 April 2026 . The RPSC argued that the petitioner misled the Court, citing that many candidates already possessed admit cards. The bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma deleted paragraphs extending the benefit to other candidates and confined it to the petitioner alone. The order emphasizes that any further private party seeking similar relief must approach the appropriate court. Important Facts 1. The original recruitment notification was issued in 2021; the written exam was conducted and results announced in 2023, but the process was challenged due to alleged paper‑leakage. 2. The High Court cancelled the 2021 recruitment on 28 August 2025, prompting the state to seek a stay. 3. A new notification dated 17 July 2025 offered age relaxation for 2021 applicants, but the High Court’s single judge order did not reflect this, leading to further petitions. 4. The case is being heard as a Special Leave Petition (SLP) (No. 38278 of 2025). 5. The division bench of the High Court stayed the single judge’s order on 8 September 2025 and later on 13 November 2025 stayed the provisional permission granted to the petitioner. UPSC Relevance Understanding this case helps aspirants grasp: The hierarchy of courts and the procedural routes (single judge, division bench, Supreme Court) – essential for GS1: Polity . The role of state recruitment bodies like RPSC in ensuring merit‑based selection. Legal concepts such as age relaxation and the impact of procedural stays on large‑scale examinations. The importance of transparency and accountability in public recruitment, a recurring theme in ethics and governance questions (GS4: Ethics). Way Forward • The High Court’s pending judgment will determine whether other 2021 applicants can claim the same relief. • If the division bench eventually extends the benefit, affected candidates must file fresh petitions before the appropriate court. • Aspirants should monitor similar cases to understand how judicial interventions can alter recruitment timelines and eligibility criteria. Overall, the Supreme Court’s modification underscores the judiciary’s role in balancing individual relief against broader administrative considerations in public service examinations.