i. The Constitution (103rd Amendment) Act, 2019 was notified in
the Gazette of India on 12.01.2019, wherein Article 15(6) and
Article 16(6) were inserted in the Constitution. Article 15(6) of
the Constitution empowers the State to make special provisions
for the advancement of citizens belonging to the EWS category.
Article 16(6) further empowers the State to make reservation of
appointments or posts in favour of EWS citizens, in addition to
the existing reservation and subject to a maximum of ten per
cent of the posts in each category.
iv. Respondent No. 2 issued Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
on reservation to Economically Weaker Sections in
posts/services under Central Government dated 19.09.2022, the
relevant questions with respect to age relaxation to EWS
category have been reproduced as under:
"Question-12- If a person belongs to Other Backward
Classes (OBCs) in a State list but not in Central List, can
he apply for Income and Asset Certificate?
W.P.(C) 8477/2024
17:18:08
Answer: Para 2 of annexure-1 to O.M., dated 31.01 .2019,
regarding Income & Asset Certificate reads as under:
"Shri/Smt./Kumari belongs to the caste which is not
recognized as a Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe and
Other Backward Classes (Central List)" Therefore, if a
person belongs to OBC in a State list but not in Central
List, he/she can apply for Income and Asset Certificate for
applying to posts and services of the Government of India
to avail of EWS reservation subject to fulfilling other
conditions, as mentioned in said OM, dated 31.1.2019
Question-28. - Whether the benefit of age relaxation and
relaxation in number of attempts available to EWS
candidates?
Answer: No. The conditions prescribed for General
category candidates in matters of Age and Number of
attempts, would also apply to EWS candidates."
v. Respondent No.2, thereafter, published the Civil Services
Examination Notification dated 14.02.2024, which also did not
provide any upper age/attempt relaxation to candidates
belonging to the EWS Category.
vi. The Petitioners initially approached the Hon'ble Apex Court
seeking the same relief as sought in the present petition,
however, the same was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to
approach this Court vide order dated 14.05.2024.
vii. Shortly afterwards, the Petitioners preferred the present petition.
4. The learned counsel for the Petitioners submitted that in the
instant case, the plight of the Petitioners is that even after more than 5
years of the coming into force of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment,
no age relaxation is provided to EWS candidates in direct recruitment
under Central Government. He submitted that there have been no
W.P.(C) 8477/2024
17:18:08
stakeholder consultations by the concerned Ministries (Respondents
herein) in this regard as well. He submitted that in these
circumstances, the Petitioners cannot wait indefinitely for executive
action on this front.
5. He submitted that in Janhit Abhiyan vs Union of India :(2022)
10 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has reiterated that if we are to
move towards a casteless society, economic depravity should be given
equal if not more weightage compared to social backwardness. He
submitted that if reservation for the EWS category lacks key
components for true realization of affirmative action like age/attempt
relaxation, then the objective of reservation would itself be frustrated.
6. He submitted that candidates who belong to State OBC
categories, which are not included in the Central list, are not accorded
any reservations in recruitment with the Central Government. He
submitted that candidates who are in the State OBC list and also
qualify the stringent criteria of EWS are not being accorded any
relaxations in terms of age or number of attempts, even though such
candidates are undisputedly both socially and economically backward.
He submitted that this is a violation of the guarantee of equality
provided under Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
7. He submitted that the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir
has provided for age relaxation to EWS candidates along with eight
other State Governments. He submitted that the administration of
Jammu and Kashmir is currently under the domain of the Central
W.P.(C) 8477/2024
17:18:08
Government, and that granting upper age relaxation to the EWS
Candidates by the Central Government for Recruitment within the
J&K Government while denying it for recruitments under the Central
Government is arbitrary and devoid of any sound reasoning. He
submitted that variable standards cannot be put in place by the same
Executive as it is violative of the guarantee of equality protected under
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
8. He submitted that the complete exclusion of candidates
belonging to EWS category from a particular exemption or concession
(age relaxation) that has been introduced in aid of reservation is
arbitrary and shows non-application of mind. He submitted that an
analysis of quantifiable data indicates that applicants from the EWS
Category in various examinations for direct recruitment under the
Central Government are manifolds lesser in number when compared
to SCs/STs/OBCs (all of which have been extended benefits of
relaxation in upper age limit).
9. He submitted that in Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India :
(2003) 2 SCC 673, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the act of
governance has to withstand the test of judiciousness and impartiality
and if a decision is not based on the values of justice, equity and fair
play but to achieve popular accolade, that decision cannot be allowed
to operate.
10. He submitted that DOPT OM dated 31.01.2019 is arbitrary,
discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 16(1) of the Constitution of
W.P.(C) 8477/2024
17:18:08
India to the extent that it grants parity to the candidates of EWS
category with the candidates of General category in age criteria and
denies them any age relaxation.
11. The learned counsel for the Respondents submitted that
identical issue as in the present case already stands concluded against
similarly situated candidates in W.P (C) 3093/2022 titled Harish
Indoriya v. Union of India and Anr. decided by the Single Bench of
this Court as well as in W.P. No.14695/2024 captioned Aaditya
Narayan Pandey v. Union of India and Ors. and connected matters
decided by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh.
12. It was further submitted that the Executive has assessed the
demand for age/attempt relaxation for the EWS category. It is
submitted that UPSC is receiving approximately 450-631 applications
per vacancy in the EWS category, and on this basis, the Government
has not found it appropriate to extend further relaxations in age or
attempts to EWS candidates.
Analysis
13. The Respondents, through the Office Memorandum dated
31.01.2019, Exam Notification dated 19.02.2019, the FAQs dated
19.09.2022, and the CSE 2024 Notification, have adopted a policy
framework under which relaxations in the upper age limit and the
number of permissible attempts, as extended to SC/ST/OBC
candidates, are not made available to those belonging to the EWS
W.P.(C) 8477/2024
17:18:08
category in appointments under the Central Government. The
Petitioners, being members of the said category, essentially seek
parity with candidates from SC/ST/OBC categories in respect of the
grant of such relaxations. This issue is undisputedly a policy matter,
which falls in the domain of the Legislature.
Scope of judicial review in policy matters
14. At the outset, it is imperative to appreciate that while exercising
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, Courts do not enact
laws or frame policies and the same is in the domain of the Legislature
and Executive. It is presumed that these institutions understand the
needs of its people and make laws and policies accordingly. Courts
should not interfere with policy decisions unless the policy can be
faulted on grounds of violation of fundamental rights, manifest
arbitrariness or is opposed to statutory or constitutional framework,
which would render the policy unconstitutional. However, if the
policy cannot be faulted on any of these grounds, the mere fact that it
would hurt the interests of one party or is not equally beneficial to all,
does not justify invalidating the policy. Reference is made to the
judgment in Directorate of Film Festivals vs Gaurav Ashwin Jain :
(2007) 4 SCC 737, where the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:
"16. The scope of judicial review of governmental policy is
now well defined. Courts do not and cannot act as
Appellate Authorities examining the correctness,
suitability and appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts
advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the
executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial
W.P.(C) 8477/2024
17:18:08
review when examining a policy of the Government is to
check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the
citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the
Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or
manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy
either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the
ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is
available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or
soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review
(vide Asif Hameed v. State of J&K [1989 Supp (2) SCC
364] , Sitaram Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Union of India [(1990) 3
SCC 223] , Khoday Distilleries Ltd. v. State of Karnataka
[(1996) 10 SCC 304] , BALCO Employees' Union v.
Union of India [(2002) 2 SCC 333] , State of Orissa v.
Gopinath Dash [(2005) 13 SCC 495 : 2006 SCC (L&S)
1225] and Akhil Bharat Goseva Sangh (3) v. State of A.P.
[(2006) 4 SCC 162])"
(emphasis supplied)
15. Undisputedly, Courts are not advisors to the Executive on
matters of policy which the Executive is entitled to formulate. It is not
ordinarily within the domain of Courts to weigh the pros and cons of a
policy or test the degree of its equitable disposition. Reference at this
stage can be made to the observations of the Apex Court in State of
Punjab v. Ram LubhayaBagga : (1998) 4 SCC 117,the relevant
extracts of the said judgment have been reproduced herein below:
"25. Now we revert to the last submission, whether the
new State policy is justified in not reimbursing an
employee, his full medical expenses incurred on such
treatment, if incurred in any hospital in India not being a
government hospital in Punjab. Question is whether the
new policy which is restricted by the financial constraints
of the State to the rates in ALIMS would be in violation of
Article 21 of the Constitution of India. So far as
questioning the validity of governmental policy is
concerned in our view it is not normally within the
domain of any court, to weigh the pros and cons of the
W.P.(C) 8477/2024
17:18:08
policy or to scrutinize it and test the degree of its
beneficial or equitable disposition for the purpose of
varying, modifying or annulling it, based on howsoever
sound and good reasoning, except where it is arbitrary or
violative of any constitutional, statutory or any other
provision of law. When Government forms its policy, it is
based on a number of circumstances on facts, law
including constraints based on its resources. It is also
based on expert opinion. It would be dangerous if court
is asked to test the utility, beneficial effect of the policy or
its appraisal based on facts set out on affidavits. The
court would dissuade itself from entering into this realm
which belongs to the executive. It is within this matrix
that it is to be seen whether the new policy violates Article
21 when it restricts reimbursement on account of its
financial constraints."
(emphasis supplied)
16. Hence, it is no more res integra that this Court does not sit in
appeal to amend the policies. The Executive is entrusted with the task
of formulation and implementation of policies. These policies are
often the product of complex economic, social, political and technical
considerations. To subject such policy decisions to judicial
substitution merely because a different view appears more prudent or
equitable would violate the doctrine of separation of powers. Judicial
Review, therefore, is not concerned with the merits of a policy but
with its legality.
Constitutional Framework Governing Reservation for Economically
Weaker Sections
17. In order to test whether the assailed policy of the government
could be adjudicated as unconstitutional or violative of any other
provision of law, it is also imperative to appreciate the evolution of
W.P.(C) 8477/2024
17:18:08
law in relation to reservation of posts or appointments under the State
to citizens belonging to the EWS category.
18. The Constitution of India initially did not contain any provision
to allow for reservations for citizens belonging to economically
depraved sections of society. The concessions under Article 16
pertaining to reservations were only restricted to Socially and
Educationally Backward Classes, including the SC, ST and OBC
categories. While Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India provided
that there shall be equality of opportunity for all citizens in matters
relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State,
Article 16(4) empowered the State to make reservations in
appointments or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens
which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately represented in the
services under the State.
19. It is only in the year 2019 that Article 16(6) was inserted in the
Constitution by the 103rd Amendment in order to extend such benefits
towards the Economically Weaker Sections of society. The relevant
provisions of the Constitution of India are set out below:
"16(1) There shall be equality of opportunity for all
citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment
to any office under the State.
xxx
16(4) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from
making any provision for the reservation of appointments
or posts in favour of any backward class of citizens
which, in the opinion of the State, is not adequately
represented in the services under the State.
xxx
W.P.(C) 8477/2024
17:18:08
16(6) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from
making any provision for the reservation of appointments
or posts in favour of any economically weaker sections of
citizens other than the classes mentioned in clause (4), in
addition to the existing reservation and subject to a
maximum of ten per cent of the posts in each category."
(emphasis supplied)
20. The objective underlying the introduction of reservation for
candidates belonging to the Economically Weaker Sections was to
address the exclusion of such sections from higher educational
institutions and public employment on account of financial incapacity.
Recognising the mandate of Article 46 to promote the educational and
economic interests of weaker sections, the legislature sought to extend
the benefit of reservation to those who, though not socially backward,
suffer from economic disadvantage and lack a fair opportunity to
compete with more privileged sections of society. The same is evident
from the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Constitution (One
Hundred and Twenty-Fourth Amendment) Bill, 2019, through which
the said amendments were introduced and placed before Parliament
for consideration, and which are reproduced hereinbelow:
"At present, the economically weaker sections of citizens
have largely remained excluded from attending the higher
educational institutions and public employment on
account of their financial incapacity to compete with the
persons who are economically more privileged. The
benefits of existing reservations under clauses (4) and (5)
of article 15 and clause (4) of article 16 are generally
unavailable to them unless they meet the specific criteria
of social and educational backwardness.
2. The directive principles of State policy contained in
article 46 of the Constitution enjoins that the State shall
promote with special care the educational and economic
W.P.(C) 8477/2024
17:18:08
interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in
particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all
forms of exploitation.
3. Vide the Constitution (Ninety-third Amendment) Act,
2005, clause (5) was inserted in article 15 of the
Constitution which enables the State to make special
provision for the advancement of any socially and
educationally backward classes of citizens, or for the
Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes, in relation to
their admission in higher educational institutions.
Similarly, clause (4) of article 16 of the Constitution
enables the State to make special provision for the
reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any
backward class of citizens which, in the opinion of the
State, is not adequately represented in the services under
the State.
4. However, economically weaker sections of citizens were
not eligible for the benefit of reservation. With a view to
fulfil the mandate of article 46, and to ensure that
economically weaker sections of citizens to get a fair
chance of receiving higher education and participation in
employment in the services of the State, it has been
decided to amend the Constitution of India.
5. Accordingly, the Constitution (One Hundred and
Twenty-fourth Amendment) Bill, 2019 provides for
reservation for the economically weaker sections of
society in higher educational institutions, including
private institutions whether aided or unaided by the State
other than the minority educational institutions referred to
in article 30 of the constitution and also provides for
reservation for them in posts in initial appointment in
services under the State.
6. The Bill seeks to achieve the above objects."
21. It flows from the 103rd Constitutional Amendment and the
objectives of parliament in the 124th Constitution Amendment Bill
that EWS refers to that constitutionally recognised category of
W.P.(C) 8477/2024
17:18:08
individuals, being persons not covered under SC/ST/OBC classes, and
who are economically disadvantaged, as identified and determined by
the State on the basis of income and asset criteria, for the purpose of
receiving the benefit of reservation in education and public
employment under Articles 15(6) and 16(6) of the Constitution of
India. EWS is a residual class constituted by exclusion, who are
accorded reservations solely on the ground of economic deprivation
and not historical social discrimination or caste-based oppression.
22. Perusal of the Parliamentary Debates of the Constitution (One
Hundred and Twenty-Fourth Amendment) Bill, 2019 reveals that the
legislature consciously envisaged the EWS, who have been suffering
from economic depravity, as a category distinct from and mutually
exclusive of, the classes already contemplated under Articles 15(4)
and 16(4) of the Constitution of India.The same is also evident from
the very phrasing of Article 16(6) of the Constitution which provides
for reservation for a class of citizens "other than the classes
mentioned in clause (4)". A natural corollary to the above would be
that this class of citizens contemplated under Article 16(6) was
introduced as a separate class from the socially and educationally
backward class of citizens.
Whether the non-extension of age and attempt relaxations to EWS
candidates is unconstitutional or arbitrary?
23. The Petitioners have assailed the Office Memorandum dated
31.01.2019 passed by Respondent No.2, Notice of Examination dated
W.P.(C) 8477/2024
17:18:08
19.02.2019, FAQs dated 19.09.2022 and the C.S.E. 2024 Notification
to the extent that the policy framed by the aforesaid denies EWS
candidates' relaxations in terms of age and attempts as has been
accorded to SC/ST/OBC candidates. In order to assess whether this
Court can interfere with the said policy, the Court ought to determine
whether the same is unconstitutional or arbitrary.
24. The Office Memorandum, dated 31.01.2019, titled 'Reservation
for Economically Weaker Sections in direct recruitment in civil posts
and services in the Government of India' declared a reservation of
10% for persons belonging to EWS category, who are not covered
under the scheme of reservation for SCs, STs, and OBCs, in direct
recruitment in civil posts and services in the Government of India.
Itfurther provides that persons who are not covered under the scheme
of reservation for SC/ST/OBC and whose family has gross annual
income below ₹8,00,000/- are to be identified as EWS for the benefit
of reservation.
25. Notice of Examination dated 19.02.2019 wherein candidates
belonging to SC/ST categories were allowed age relaxation of up to a
maximum of five years and candidates belonging to OBC category
were allowed age relaxation of up to a maximum of three years.
Further, the Notification declared that every candidate appearing was
permitted a maximum of six attempts, however, certain relaxation
with regard to maximum number of attempts qua SC/ST/OBC
W.P.(C) 8477/2024
17:18:08
category candidates were given. None of the aforesaid relaxations
were extended to candidates belonging to the EWS category.
26. Frequently Asked Questions on reservation to Economically
Weaker Sections in posts/services under Central Government dated
19.09.2022 issued by Respondent No.2, the same only reiterates the
policy of the government stating that age relaxation is not provided to
candidates belonging to the EWS category.
27. The Petitioners have also assailed the C.S.E Notification 2024
contending that the same does not provide any age relaxation/ attempt
relaxation to EWS candidates.
28. As discussed above, the Economically Weaker Sections
category, introduced only in 2019 through the 103rd Constitutional
Amendment, stands on a fundamentally different footing from the
SC/ST/OBC categories. The distinction between EWS and the
SC/ST/OBC categories is highlighted by the very nature of the
disadvantage they seek to address. EWS is concerned only with
economic deprivation. The hardship faced by individuals in this
category arises from lack of financial resources. It does not stem from
social stigma or historical exclusion.
29. In contrast, SC, ST, and OBC categories are rooted in deep and
long-standing social and educational backwardness. These groups
have suffered discrimination and ostracism for generations, solely on
account of their caste, such a disadvantage is structural and enduring.
W.P.(C) 8477/2024
17:18:08
Caste, unlike economic status, is not a variable, it is fixed by birth and
cannot be changed. A person born into a disadvantaged caste
continues to face its consequences throughout life.
30. Economic status, on the other hand, is fluid. It can change over
time, within years or across generations. A person may move in or out
of poverty depending on circumstances. For this reason, the
deprivation faced by EWS individuals is not comparable to caste-
based discrimination, which carries to some extent a long lasting
social stigma.
31. Therefore, since it cannot be said that the handicaps faced by
socially backward classes and economically deprived classes are the
same, different ancillary concessions and relaxations ought to be
provided to both the categories. The EWS category cannot claim
automatic parity with SC/ST/OBC in ancillary considerations such as
age relaxation or enhanced attempts.
32. Appositely, the constitutional framework itself recognizes
distinction between the EWS and SC/ST/OBC categories, mere grant
of certain concessions to one category does not amount to
discrimination once admittedly the reservation has been granted to all
the categories. The Hon'ble Apex Court in C. Udayakumar v. Union
of India : 1995 Supp (3) SCC,while adjudicating a similar issue in
relation to candidates belonging to the OBC category not being
granted the same upper age limit relaxation as the SC/ST category,
observed that once the constitution itself recognizes distinction
W.P.(C) 8477/2024
17:18:08
between SC/ST and OBCs in the matter of reservation, then merely
because some concessions given to SC/ST are not extended to OBCs,
the reservations do not become discriminatory. The relevant
paragraphs of the aforesaid judgment are reproduced herein below:
"3. The Constitution itself recognises the distinction
between the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and the
Other Backward Classes in the matter of reservation.
Merely because reservations are kept or concessions are
given to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
which are not extended to the OBCs, the reservations
and the concessions do not become discriminatory.
4. In the present case, the respondent-Union of India has
filed an affidavit in which it is pointed out that the number
of candidates belonging to OBCs who have qualified to
appear for the preliminary examination is ten times the
number of posts. If in the circumstances, the Government
has not thought it necessary to relax the upper age-limit
for the OBCs, it cannot be said that the Government has
not applied its mind."
(emphasis supplied)
33. Even otherwise, it is upon the State to decide the quantum and
manner of reservations to be accorded to citizens belonging to the said
categories. The State has to look at data, social conditions, and
administrative needs before deciding the extent and manner of
reservations. The State, after consideration of such data, while issuing
instructions in terms with Article 16(6), has chosen to not provide
relaxations and concessions to the EWS category, in the matter of age
limit/attempts. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Bir Singh vs Delhi Jal
Board & Others : (2018) 10 SCC 312 has also held that the policy
decision of the State to provide reservation, is beyond the pale of
W.P.(C) 8477/2024
17:18:08
judicial review. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment have
been reproduced herein below:
"37. Article 16(4) is an enabling provision: It enables the
State to provide to Backward Classes including Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes reservation in appointments
to public services. Such reservation is to be provided on
the basis of quantifiable data indicating the adequacy or
inadequacy, as may be, of the representation of such
classes in Government service. The data which is the basis
of the satisfaction of the State being verifiable, is open to
judicial scrutiny on the limited ground of relevance of the
circumstances on which the satisfaction is moulded. The
policy decision to provide reservation, of course, is
beyond the pale of judicial review."
34. Even in the cases of Harish Indoriya(supra) and Aaditya
Narayan Pandey v. Union of India and Ors. (supra),a Single Bench
of this Court and a Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High
Court, respectively, had dismissed writ petitions filed by EWS
candidates, seeking relaxations as accorded to candidates of
SC/ST/OBC, with the observation that the policy decision taken qua
relaxations, on attempts and age limit, is beyond the scope of judicial
review.
35. It is also the contention of the Petitioners that candidates who
are in the State OBC list and also qualify the stringent criteria of EWS
are not being accorded any relaxations in terms of age or number of
attempts even though such candidates are undisputedly both socially
and economically backward.
W.P.(C) 8477/2024
17:18:08
36. It is pertinent to note that Article 342A treats the lists
maintained by the State Government and Central Government for
socially and educationally backward classes as distinct. Undisputedly,
a community not figured in the Central List, though figuring in the
State Government List, cannot claim reservation for services under the
Union.
37. 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.
38. It is further contended by the Petitioners that the Union
Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, along with eight other State
Governments, has extended age relaxation to EWS candidates, and
that the denial of similar relaxation in recruitments under the Central
Government is arbitrary and lacking in any sound rationale.
39. In the opinion of this Court, no claim of parity can be sustained
between policies framed by the Union and those adopted by individual
States or Union Territories. Conditions of service, including the
prescription of age limits and permissible attempts, fall within the
exclusive domain of the respective recruiting authorities. The mere
fact that certain States or Union Territories have chosen to extend
such relaxations does not impose any corresponding obligation upon
the Central Government to adopt an identical approach.
W.P.(C) 8477/2024
17:18:08
40. At the cost of repetition, this Court must state that such policy
decisions are made by the Legislature and Executive taking into
account a number technical considerations and expert opinion. In the
opinion of this Court, merely because the policy accords different
relaxations to candidates who have been accorded reservation under
separate categories, the said policy cannot be said to be mala fide,
arbitrary or unconstitutional.
41. In view of the aforesaid, the Office Memorandum dated
31.01.2019 which provides 10% reservation to EWS candidates
without providing any other ancillary relaxations and Notice of
Examination, dated 19.02.2019 which only provides relaxations in
terms of age and attempt relaxation to SC/ST/OBC candidates cannot
be held to unconstitutional or arbitrary.
42. The Frequently Asked Questions on reservation to
Economically Weaker Sections in posts/services under Central
Government dated 19.09.2022 issued by Respondent No.2, only
reiterates the policy of the government stating that age relaxation is
not provided to candidates belonging to the EWS category. Once this
Court has concluded that the policy decision not to extend age
relaxation to the EWS category is neither unconstitutional nor
arbitrary, the FAQs reflecting that position cannot be said to suffer
from any perversity.
43. The CSE Notification, 2024 is issued in accordance with the
Civil Services Examination Rules, 2024. Rule 3 of these Rules
W.P.(C) 8477/2024
17:18:08
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.
44. Evidently, the Petitioners have failed to demonstrate that the
impugned policy is arbitrary or violative of any constitutional,
statutory, or other provision of law.
45. It is also relevant to point out that this 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
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
W.P.(C) 8477/2024
17:18:08
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.
Conclusion
46. In such circumstances, the assailed policy decision falls
squarely outside the permissible scope of judicial review and warrants
no interference by this Court.
47. In our considered opinion, the Petitioners have 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. Further, no case has been made out to quash Office
Memorandum dated 31.01.2019, Notice of Examination dated
19.02.2019, FAQs dated 19.09.2022 or the C.S.E. 2024 Notification.
48. In view of the above, the present Petition is dismissed. Pending
application also stands disposed of.
AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
APRIL 16, 2026
vv
W.P.(C) 8477/2024
17:18:08
