Delhi High Court rejected plea by EWS candidates seeking parity in relaxations with SC, ST, OBC categories. Bench of Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan held policy decisions fall within legislative and executive domain.
The Delhi High Court recently turned down a petition from Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) candidates seeking equal age and attempt relaxations as those given to Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) in central government jobs. This ruling highlights the judiciary’s restraint in interfering with executive policy on reservations.
A Division Bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Amit Mahajan emphasized that such matters fall under legislative and administrative discretion.
Backgrounds of the Case:
The dispute traces back to the 103rd Constitutional Amendment in 2019, which added Articles 15(6) and 16(6) to provide a 10% quota for EWS in education and public employment. This move aimed to benefit those excluded from existing reservations due to financial hardship, without overlapping with SC/ST/OBC categories.
However, a January 31, 2019, government memorandum equated EWS candidates with the general category for age limits and exam attempts, denying them extras like OBC’s three-year age relaxation or additional tries in exams such as the Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2024.
Petitioners, EWS aspirants, challenged this parity, along with related clarifications, FAQs from 2022, and the CSE notification. They argued it violated equality under Articles 14 and 16, leaving EWS at a disadvantage despite the quota. They highlighted state variations, like Jammu and Kashmir’s relaxations, and claimed state-listed OBCs qualifying as EWS deserved benefits. No stakeholder consultations had occurred post-amendment, they noted, forcing indefinite waits.
The government countered that UPSC data showed strong EWS participation 450-631 applications per vacancy negating the need for relaxations. Prior rulings, including Delhi High Court’s Harish Indoriya case (2022) and Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Aaditya Narayan Pandey matter (2024), had rejected similar pleas, affirming policy choices beyond judicial purview.
Legal Issue:
Whether withholding age and attempt relaxations from EWS candidates rendered the government’s policy arbitrary or unconstitutional?
Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus for parity with OBC benefits, asserting that economic deprivation warranted equal ancillary perks to fulfill reservation goals. They invoked Supreme Court precedents like Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India (2022) 10 SCC 1, urging economic criteria’s primacy in a casteless society vision.
Court’s Analysis
The Bench dissected constitutional history, noting Articles 16(1) and 16(4) originally covered only socially backward classes. Article 16(6) carved out EWS as a distinct, exclusionary group limited to 10% targeting financial incapacity per Article 46’s directive for weaker sections’ upliftment. The 124th Amendment Bill’s objects clarified EWS aimed to level opportunities for the non-socially backward poor, not replicate SC/ST/OBC frameworks rooted in historical stigma.
ALSO READ: Bihar Announces 10% EWS Reservation in Judicial Services and Law Colleges
Rejecting parity claims, the court stressed EWS’s economic focus versus caste’s permanence. Unlike fixed birth-based disadvantages, wealth fluctuates, demanding tailored policies. Granting identical relaxations risked diluting existing quotas and administrative feasibility, matters for the executive after data review.
Drawing from C. Udayakumar v. Union of India (1995 Supp (3) SCC), the court analogized OBCs’ lack of full SC/ST relaxations. There, the Supreme Court upheld distinctions, noting high OBC prelim qualifiers negated age tweaks. “Merely because reservations are kept or concessions are given to SC/ST which are not extended to OBCs, the reservations do not become discriminatory,” it ruled, emphasizing constitutional gradations.
Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board (2018) 10 SCC 312 reinforced this, deeming reservation quanta and modes non-justiciable if backed by quantifiable data. “The policy decision to provide reservation is beyond the pale of judicial review,” it stated, limiting scrutiny to relevance, not wisdom.
Prior high court dismissals like Harish Indoriya v. Union of India (W.P.(C) 3093/2022) and Aaditya Narayan Pandey (W.P. No.14695/2024) echoed this, shielding executive calls on EWS relaxations. Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India (2003) 2 SCC 673 was cited against arbitrary governance, but the Bench found the policy judicious.
Observations
The Court observed:
“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 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,”
ALSO READ: Why Only General category Getting EWS benefits: Madhya Pradesh High Court Asks Centre
The court observed EWS’s “residual” nature excludes SC/ST/OBC, focusing solely on economic fluidity, not enduring social scars. “Handicaps faced by socially backward classes and economically deprived classes are not the same,” it held, justifying divergent concessions. State OBCs absent from central lists get no central perks, per Article 342A’s dual lists.
Jammu and Kashmir’s policy, under central oversight, doesn’t bind Union recruitments recruiters set terms independently. Data showed robust EWS applications, undercutting need claims. The 2019 memo, 2022 FAQs, and CSE rules aligned with unchallenged frameworks, untainted by mala fides.
Acknowledging EWS struggles, the Bench noted stringent eligibility ensures genuine aid, but multifaceted relaxations demand legislative calculus. Judicial boundaries barred mandating changes, dismissing the petition without costs.
Case Title: Anish Arun Vs Union of India
FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE