EWS Candidates Not Entitled To Parity With SC/ST/OBC For Age Relaxation In UPSC Exams: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has dismissed a petition seeking age relaxation and additional attempts for candidates belonging to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) in direct recruitments and employment under the Central Government.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan ruled that the policy decision of the Union Government to deny age and attempt relaxations to EWS candidates is neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional.

The Court dismissed batch of pleas filed by various candidates belonging to the EWS category. They challenged the DoPT Office Memorandum dated January 31, 2019, the 2022 FAQs, and the Civil Services Examination, 2024 notification issued by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).

They argued that while 10% reservation has been granted to EWS candidates following the Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019, no corresponding relaxation in upper age limit or number of attempts has been provided—unlike SC/ST/OBC candidates. As per the petitioners, the situation is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

Rejecting the plea, the Court held that the Petitioners failed to make out any case to issue a writ of mandamus to grant age relaxation or increase the number of attempts granted to members of the EWS category.

However, it clarified that the Court is not unmindful of the socio-economic realities that undergird the classification of candidates within the Economically Weaker Sections.

“The eligibility thresholds prescribed for inclusion in this category are, by design, exacting and exclusionary, ensuring that only those who are genuinely afflicted by economic deprivation are brought within its fold. At the same time, this Court must remain cognizant of the institutional boundaries that circumscribe the exercise of judicial review,” the Court said.

“Legislature being conscious of the plight of candidates belonging to the EWS category has introduced reservations. The additional relaxations sought by the Petitioners, however, entail multifaceted evaluations; ranging from administrative feasibility and financial implications to the potential impact on existing reservation frameworks. Such determinations are undisputedly legislative in character and lie within the purview of the Legislature and the Executive,” it added.

Further, the Court noted that Article 342A treats the lists maintained by the State Government and Central Government for socially and educationally backward classes as distinct and thus, a community not figured in the Central List, though figuring in the State Government List, cannot claim reservation for services under the Union.

“Once a particular caste or community is not recognised as OBC for the purpose of the Central Government then there can be no question to claim any ancillary concessions under the Central Government emerging from Article 15 and 16 of the Constitution of India,” the Court said.

It also observed that no claim of parity can be sustained between policies framed by the Union and those adopted by individual States or Union Territories. The Bench said that conditions of service, including the prescription of age limits and permissible attempts, fall within the exclusive domain of the respective recruiting authorities.

“The CSE Notification, 2024 is issued in accordance with the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2024. Rule 3 of these Rules prescribes the number of attempts available to candidates across different categories, while Rule 5 stipulates the minimum and maximum age limits, along with the age relaxations granted to certain categories. Notably, the Rules do not provide any age or attempt relaxation for candidates belonging to the EWS category. These Rules have not been challenged before this Court. In any event, it is undisputed that the State has not framed any policy granting such relaxations to EWS candidates; consequently, no such benefit can be claimed as a matter of right,” the Bench observed.

Title: ANISH ARUN & ORS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

Click here to read order