New Delhi: In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has held that candidates belonging to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) cannot claim the same age relaxation and additional attempt benefits that are extended to candidates from Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) in Central government recruitments. The judgment underscores the distinction between economic disadvantage and structural social backwardness.
On April 16, 2026, a Division Bench made up of Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Amit Mahajan rendered the decision, rejecting a petition submitted by EWS candidates requesting parity with other reserved categories regarding the relaxation of the upper age limit and the number of allowable attempts, especially in exams administered by organisations like the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC).
As per existing UPSC norms, candidates from SC/ST categories are granted up to five years of age relaxation, while OBC candidates are eligible for up to three years. Additionally, these categories are provided with a higher number of permissible attempts. However, no such relaxations are currently extended to candidates under the EWS category.
Given that several States and Union Territories, including Jammu and Kashmir, have implemented age relaxation provisions for EWS candidates in their respective recruitment processes, the petitioners contended that the lack of comparable benefits for EWS candidates was arbitrary and lacked a rational basis.
Rejecting this contention, the Court clarified that policy decisions taken by individual States or Union Territories do not bind the Central government to adopt identical measures. It emphasized that differences in policy frameworks can exist depending on the nature and objectives of each administration.
The Bench made a clear contrast in its reasoning between the types of obstacles that SC, ST, and OBC communities encounter and those that EWS applicants face. The Court noted that where hardship results from financial constraints, EWS designation is exclusively based on economic reasons. SC, ST, and OBC classifications, on the other hand, are based on long-standing social and educational backwardness, frequently coupled with systemic exclusion and historical prejudice. “Caste, unlike economic status, is not a variable; it is fixed by birth and cannot be changed,” the Court noted.
However, the Court noted that the state of the economy is dynamic and can change over time, either within a generation or between generations. Therefore, in terms of severity and duration, the kind of deprivation experienced by EWS people is not equivalent to discrimination based on caste.
Concluding that the distinction made by the Central government in extending relaxations to different categories is neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional, the Court upheld the existing framework. It affirmed that EWS candidates cannot automatically seek parity with SC/ST/OBC candidates in ancillary benefits such as age relaxation and increased attempts.
