W.P.(C) 8477/2024 Page 1 of 23

$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 27.02.2026

Judgment pronounced on: 16.04.2026

+ W.P.(C) 8477/2024 and CM APPL. 7874/2025

ANISH ARUN & ORS. .....Petitioners

Through: Mr. Shivendra Singh, Mr. Sagar

Devgan, Ms. Prakriti Rastogi

and Ms. Aryama Singh Rajput,

Advs

versus

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Mr.

Manish Kumar Singh, Mr. Vasu

Agarwal and Mr. Lekh Raj

Singh, Advs. for UPSC

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN

J U D G M E N T

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.

1.The present Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:

“a. Pass an appropriate writ or order or direction striking

down the DoPT OM dated 31.01.2019 as violative of

Article 14 and Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India,

and further pass an appropriate writ or order or direction

striking down the FAQs dated 19.09.2022 issued by

Respondent No. 2 DOPT to the extent it accords parity to

the candidates of EWS category with the candidates of

General Category in age criterion and denies candidates

belonging to the EWS category any age relaxation as has

been extended to candidates belonging to SC/ST/OBC

(Central-NCL) categories, and further pass an

appropriate writ or order or direction striking down the

W.P.(C) 8477/2024 Page 2 of 23

C.S.E. 2024 Notification issued by Respondent No. 3

UPSC to the extent it does not provide any age relaxation

for the EWS Category; and

b. Pass an appropriate writ/ order or direction in the

nature of mandamus to the Respondents directing them to

extend the same relaxation/concession in age/attempts as

is extended to candidates belonging to Central OBC Lists

also to the candidates belonging to the EWS category in

direct recruitments in employment under the Central

Government; and

c. Pass such other order or direction as it deems fit in the

facts of the present case and in the interest of justice.”

2.The Petitioners, who belong to the Economically Weaker

Section (‘EWS’) category, seek extension of the same relaxation in

upper age limit and number of attempts as is presently available to

candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes (‘SC’), Scheduled

Tribes (‘ST’) and Other Backward Classes (‘OBC’) in direct

recruitments / employment under the Central Government.

3.Material facts germane to the adjudication of the present case

are as follows:

i.The Constitution (103

rd

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.

W.P.(C) 8477/2024 Page 3 of 23

ii.Respondent No. 2 vide 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.

iii.Respondent No. 3 issued a 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 category candidates were given. None of the

aforesaid relaxations were extended to candidates belonging to

the EWS 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 Page 4 of 23

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 103

rd

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 Page 5 of 23

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 Page 6 of 23

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 Page 7 of 23

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 Page 8 of 23

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 Page 9 of 23

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 Page 10 of 23

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 Page 11 of 23

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 103

rd

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 Page 12 of 23

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 Page 13 of 23

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 103

rd

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 Page 14 of 23

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 Page 15 of 23

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 Page 16 of 23

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 Page 17 of 23

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 Page 18 of 23

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 Page 19 of 23

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 Page 20 of 23

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 Page 21 of 23

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 Page 22 of 23

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 Page 23 of 23

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