EWS Candidates Can't Claim Age Relaxation As A Matter Of Right In Absence Of Statutory Rules: Madhya Pradesh High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an enabling provision of the Constitution [such as Articles 15(6) or 16(6)] does not vest the right to claim age relaxation, especially where the statutory framework does not provide for the same. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 212]The division bench of Justice Pranay Verma and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai rejected an appeal, challenging the order of the Single...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that an enabling provision of the Constitution [such as Articles 15(6) or 16(6)] does not vest the right to claim age relaxation, especially where the statutory framework does not provide for the same. [2026 LiveLaw (MP) 212]
The division bench of Justice Pranay Verma and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai rejected an appeal, challenging the order of the Single Bench dismissing his petition seeking age relaxation for Economically Weaker Sections candidates in the recruitment process for the post of Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer.
The bench observed:
"it is evident that the grant of age relaxation and incidental concessions are governed by the specific rules framed by the State Government. An enabling constitutional provision does not automatically vest an absolute right in the appellant to claim age relaxation absent a statutory framework".
The counsel for the appellant contended that while the advertisement granted age relaxation to Scheduled Caste, Tribes and other Backward Classes candidates, no such benefit was extended to EWS applicants. He contended that this amounted to discrimination and undermined the objective of the 103rd constitutional amendment, which introduced the reservation for EWS through Articles 15(6) and 16(6) of the Constitution.
The petitioner, an advocate and EWS candidate, claimed that he was 43 years old on the prescribed cut-off date of January 1, 2027, exceeding the upper age limit of 40 years prescribed in the advertisement. Due to the absence of age relaxation for EWS candidates, he was unable to submit his application through the online recruitment portal.
The appellant further argued that the examination for the post had not been conducted for nearly 5 years after the previous recruitment process in 2021. and that the candidates should not suffer due to such administrative delays.
The State Government opposed the plea, maintaining that concepts such as age relaxation and reservation can be granted only if prescribed under statutory rules or government policy. Further, the State argued that the court cannot direct the executives to extend benefits not contemplated by existing recruitment rules.
Accepting the State's submission, the bench reiterated that the Court does not act as an appellate authority in matters pertaining to policy decisions of the government unless the same are arbitrary, discriminatory or unconstitutional.
The bench also relied upon an earlier case of Aditya Narayan Pandey v Union, W.P. No. 14695/2024, which held that the grant of reservation and related concessions is governed by the applicable statutory scheme.
Applying the said principle, the court held that while Articles 15(6) and 16(6) of the Constitution are enabling provisions permitting reservation for EWS candidates, they do not by themselves create an enforceable right to claim age relaxation.
The court, thus, held that the determination of categories eligible for age relaxation falls within the domain of the State's legislative authority. Therefore, the bench dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Suryakant Tiwari v State of Madhya Pradesh, WA-1811-2026
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (MP) 212
For Petitioner: Advocate Hindesh Pal
For State: Government Advocate Manas Mani Verma
For MPPSC: Advocate Aditya Pachori