The Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea seeking age relaxation and additional attempts for candidates belonging to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) in central government recruitment, ruling that the EWS category cannot claim “automatic parity” with Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC).
A bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan observed that the disadvantages faced by the EWS category—rooted primarily in financial lack—are fundamentally different from the “structural and enduring” social and educational backwardness experienced by SC, ST, and OBC groups.
The judgment came in response to a petition filed by EWS aspirants who sought the same concessions currently available to other reserved categories under the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) and other central government employment notifications.
Under the existing framework, SC/ST candidates receive an age relaxation of five years, while OBC candidates receive three years, alongside a higher number of permitted attempts. The petitioners argued that the denial of similar benefits to EWS candidates was arbitrary and unconstitutional.
The court drew a sharp distinction between the nature of deprivation faced by different groups. It noted that while EWS status is defined by a lack of financial resources, the status of SC, ST, and OBC categories is rooted in generations of social ostracism and discrimination.
“These groups have suffered discrimination and ostracism for generations, solely on account of their caste; such a disadvantage is structural and enduring. Caste, unlike economic status, is not a variable; it is fixed by birth and cannot be changed,” the bench stated.
The court further emphasized that economic status is “fluid” and can change over time or across generations, whereas the consequences of being born into a disadvantaged caste continue throughout a person’s life. “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,” the court added.
The bench highlighted that the legislature was fully conscious of the plight of EWS candidates when it introduced the 103rd Constitutional Amendment Act, 2019, providing them with reservations.
However, the court maintained that deciding on “additional relaxations” involves evaluating complex parameters such as administrative feasibility, financial implications, and the impact on the overall reservation framework. These matters, the court held, fall strictly within the purview of the legislature and the executive, making them unsuitable for judicial interference.
Addressing the petitioners’ argument that certain states or Union Territories extend such relaxations, the court clarified that the central government is under no obligation to adopt an identical approach.
Concluding that the petitioners failed to make out a case for a writ of mandamus, the court refused to quash the Office Memorandum dated January 31, 2019, or the subsequent examination notices for the Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2024.
The court reiterated that the constitutional framework itself recognizes a distinction between EWS and SC/ST/OBC categories. Providing different concessions to different categories, once reservation has been granted to all, does not amount to discrimination.
