Madhya Pradesh High Court: In a writ petition filed by the petitioners, belonging to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category, challenging the executive instructions issued by the Union Government and the State of Madhya Pradesh concerning age relaxation and the number of attempts for the Civil Services Examination (CSE), a Division Bench of Suresh Kumar Kait, CJ., and Vivek Jain,* J., held that no grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned executive instructions of the Central Government or the State Government of Madhya Pradesh. The Court further held that the EWS candidates cannot claim age relaxation or additional attempts as a matter of right.
Factual Matrix
In the instant matter, the petitioners challenged the executive instructions concerning age relaxation and the number of attempts for the Civil Services Examination (CSE) by the Union Government and the State of Madhya Pradesh. The petitioners stated that while the 103rd Constitutional Amendment granted reservation to EWS candidates, but no corresponding relaxation in the number of attempts and age limit was provided, whereas such relaxations were granted to Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC). Additionally, the petitioners raised a secondary issue regarding the discrepancy in providing the number of attempts to the OBC candidates listed in State OBC lists as compared to those listed in the Central OBC list. The petitioners argued that this distinction is discriminatory and violated their right to equal opportunity in public employment.
Moot Point
-
Whether EWS candidates were entitled to the same age relaxation and increased number of attempts as those granted to SC, ST, and OBC candidates in the UPSC Civil Services Examination?
-
Whether OBC candidates listed in State OBC lists should receive the same relaxations as those included in the Central OBC list?
-
Whether the exclusion of EWS candidates from the benefits of age relaxation and additional attempts violated the principles of equality under Articles 14, 15(6), and 16(6) of the Constitution of India?
Parties’ Contentions
The petitioners argued that the exclusion of EWS candidates from the relaxation of age and attempts was arbitrary and discriminatory. It was contended that if reservation benefits were extended to them under the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, then allied benefits such as relaxation in the number of attempts and upper age limit should also be granted. It was further contended that the non-inclusion of State OBC candidates for additional attempts created an artificial distinction between Central and State OBCs. The petitioners relied on the 105th Constitutional Amendment and argued that such candidates should also be given equal opportunities in national-level examinations.
However, the respondents countered that the relaxations granted to SC/ST/OBC candidates were based on historical social and educational backwardness, whereas EWS candidates faced economic hardship but were not socially disadvantaged in the same manner, therefore, extending the same relaxations to EWS would be against the Constitutional scheme. It was contended that the categorization of OBCs into State and Central lists served a distinct administrative purpose. It was contended that the Central List applies only to services under the Union Government, and State OBCs cannot claim benefits in national examinations unless their caste was included in the Central List.
Court’s Observations
Constitutional Scheme of Reservations and Relaxations
The Court explained the distinction between reservations and relaxations under the Constitution of India. The Court referred to Articles 15(4), 15(5), 15(6), 16(4), and 16(6) to establish that while reservation is constitutionally provided for various categories, the grant of allied relaxations such as age limit extension and additional attempts is a matter of policy.
The Court reaffirmed that provision for reservation of SC, ST and OBC was granted due to social and educational backwardness and historical discrimination. However, the EWS reservation, introduced by the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, is based purely on economic deprivation, and not social backwardness. The Court held that, therefore, EWS candidates cannot automatically claim the same benefits that were extended to SC, ST, or OBC candidates.
“Socially backward classes and economically deprived classes are two different classes. The considerations for grant of concessions and relaxations may be to grant equality to achieve the Constitutional goal of Article 16 (1) and to create a level playing field for candidates, who have faced deprivations in their life on account of their social backwardness or economic deprivation. The handicaps faced by socially backward classes and economically deprived classes may be different and hence, there is no requirement felt to grant further relaxations to candidates of EWS categories in the matter of relaxation in age.”
The Court cited Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India, (2023) 5 SCC 1, where the Supreme Court upheld the 103rd Amendment and noted that the EWS category is a separate and distinct class. The Court further stated that economic deprivation alone could not be equated with the historical disadvantages faced by SEBCs.
Policy Discretion of the Government
The Court observed that matters relating to relaxations in eligibility criteria fell within the executive’s policy-making domain, and Courts cannot interfere unless the policy is unconstitutional or violates fundamental rights.
“While examining a policy in exercise of a judicial review the Court would only check whether it violates fundamental right(s) or is opposed to provisions of constitution or to any other statutory provision. A more fair better or wiser policy being available cannot be the ground to interfere in a policy decision.”
The Court relied on State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga, (1998) 4 SCC 117, where it was held that Courts cannot weigh the pros and cons of a policy unless it is manifestly arbitrary; C. Udayakumar v. Union of India, 1995 Supp (3) SCC 146, where it was held that once a distinction between SC/ST and OBCs is constitutionally recognised, the non-extension of certain relaxations to one category didn’t make the policy discriminatory and Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain, (2007) 4 SCC 737, which reaffirmed that Courts should not act as appellate authorities over government policy.
The Court emphasised that while reservation is a constitutional right (if provided for a particular category), relaxations and concessions are not, and the government is not obligated to provide them unless it saw a compelling reason to do so.
Differentiation Between EWS and SEBCs
The Court stated that SEBCs reservations is based on deep-rooted social discrimination, caste-based exclusion, and lack of historical representation in public services. The Court stated that EWS candidates, on the other hand, did not suffer from caste-based discrimination but faced economic hardship. The Court asserted that since economic hardship was fluid and could change over generations, it could not be equated with caste-based backwardness, which persisted across generations.
“Caste is not a variable and cannot be changed and a person born in socially and educationally backward class in a casteist society, cannot get rid of his caste and cannot get rid of the deprivations faced by him … On the other hand, economic indicators are greatly variable. Economic condition can vary from year to year or decade to decade or from generation to generation. It may improve or get worse drastically in a short span of time.”
The Court noted that the 103rd Constitutional Amendment created a separate category for EWS, distinct from SEBCs and treating them identically to SEBCs in terms of relaxations is not warranted. The Court asserted that the relaxation of attempts and age limit for SEBCs candidates is granted to counter their historically limited access to education and employment, which is not a concern for EWS candidates, who came from varied social backgrounds.
Distinction Between Central and State OBC Lists
The Court stated that the State and Central OBC lists served different purposes, with the Central list applying only to Union Government services and the State list applying to State Government jobs. The Court stated that Article 342-A of the Constitution of India, inserted by the 105th Constitutional Amendment, clarified that the State and Central Governments could maintain separate lists.
The Court noted that the petitioners’ argument would lead to an illogical situation where every State OBC list candidate would demand Central OBC status, thereby undermining the constitutional framework for identifying backwardness at the national level. The Court held that the differentiation between State and Central OBC lists is constitutionally valid, and State OBC candidates cannot claim benefits reserved for Central OBCs unless their community is included in the Central List.
The Court cited Indra Sawhney v. Union of India, 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217, where the Supreme Court recognised that inclusion in a State OBC list did not automatically confer benefits in Central services. The Court reiterated that only those castes included in the Central list could claim OBC benefits in Union Government jobs.
Rationale for UPSC’s Policy
While addressing the petitioners’ argument that EWS candidates deserved more attempts because they faced economic difficulties, the Court noted that the Union Government and UPSC submitted statistical data showing that EWS candidates are already applying in large numbers, and there is no indication that a lack of age relaxation or additional attempts will be a barrier. The Court further noted that the UPSC received 450—631 applications per vacancy in the EWS category, suggesting that the existing policy is not preventing adequate participation.
The Court stated that if EWS candidates are struggling to qualify due to economic disadvantages, it is for the government, not the judiciary, to assess whether additional relaxations were necessary. The Court found this reasoning practical and policy-driven, and reiterated that judicial intervention is not warranted in a matter of policy unless fundamental rights are violated.
Court’s Decision
The Court dismissed the petitions and held that no grounds are made out to interfere in the impugned executive instructions of the Central Government or the State Government of Madhya Pradesh, whereby no age relaxation to members of EWS category has been carved out by the State by exercising its power under Articles 15(6) and 16(6) of the Constitution of India.
[Aaditya Narayan Pandey v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 14695 of 2024, Decided on 17-03-2025]
*Judgment by Justice Vivek Jain
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Shri Kapil Sibbal , Sr. Advocate (through V.C.) with Shri Sagar, Shri Kartik Jaggi, Dr. Monika Singhal, Shri Abhishek (through V.C.), Shri Dharmendra Soni, Ms. Gayatri Ladiya, Shri Rohit Singh, Shri Anuj Agrawal, Shri Shusheel Kumar Tiwari – Advocates and Shri Rameshwar Thakur, Sr. Advocate with Shri V.P. Shah and Shri Ramesh Prajapati, Counsel for the Petitioners
Shri S.D. Sanjay – A.S.G, Counsel for the Union of India
Shri Naresh Kaushik, Sr. Advocate with Suyash Mohan Guru, Shri Abhishek Dwivedi, Shri Depanshu Rai, Shri Mayank Upadhyay, Shri Vikram Singh and Ms.Nikita Sethi-, Counsel for respective Respondent
Smt. Janhavi Pandit, Additional Advocate General, Counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh
