Delhi High Court Denies EWS Candidates Age Relaxation in Civil Services Exam

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has dismissed a plea from Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) candidates seeking age relaxations and additional attempts in the Civil Services Examination. The court upheld the Central Government's policy, stating that such decisions fall within the executive's domain and do not violate constitutional rights. The judgment highlights the distinct nature of the EWS category compared to SC/ST/OBC categories, emphasizing that economic disadvantages differ from social stigmas. This ruling reinforces the separation of powers and the limitations of judicial review in policy matters.

By Narendra Chaudhary Apr 17, 2026, 17:00 IST

Court Ruling on EWS Candidates

The Delhi High Court has rejected a petition from candidates belonging to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) who sought age relaxations and additional attempts in the Civil Services Examination, similar to those granted to Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC).

A Division Bench, comprising Justices Anil Kshetrapal and Amit Mahajan, determined that the Central Government's decision not to extend these relaxations to EWS candidates is neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional, thus falling outside the realm of judicial review.

The petitioners contested the Department of Personnel and Training's (DoPT) Office Memorandum from January 31, 2019, along with the 2022 FAQs and the Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2024 notification issued by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC). They argued that the refusal to provide age and attempt relaxations to EWS candidates infringed upon Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

They requested that EWS candidates be granted the same concessions available to SC/ST/OBC candidates for direct recruitment to Union government positions.

In its ruling, the Delhi High Court stated that the authority to grant relaxations in age and attempts is a matter of policy formulation, which resides with the executive and legislative branches.

The Bench, led by Justice Kshetrapal, noted, "It is essential to recognize that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, courts do not create laws or policies; that responsibility lies with the Legislature and Executive."

The court further clarified that judicial review in such matters is limited to assessing whether a policy infringes upon fundamental rights or is blatantly arbitrary, rather than evaluating its wisdom or fairness. "The Executive is tasked with the formulation and implementation of policies... Subjecting such policy decisions to judicial substitution merely because an alternative view seems more prudent would violate the separation of powers doctrine," the court stated.

Regarding the claim for parity, the Bench indicated that the EWS category, established by the 103rd Constitutional Amendment in 2019, is distinct from SC/ST/OBC categories. "The challenges faced by individuals in this category stem from financial constraints, not from social stigma or historical exclusion," it explained.

In contrast, the court noted that SC, ST, and OBC categories are deeply rooted in longstanding social and educational disadvantages due to caste-based discrimination.

The judgment highlighted that economic disadvantage is inherently variable and can change over time, unlike caste, which is determined by birth and carries enduring social implications. "Since the challenges faced by socially backward classes and economically disadvantaged classes differ, distinct ancillary concessions and relaxations can be offered to both groups," the Bench concluded.

The court emphasized that EWS candidates cannot automatically claim the same benefits as SC/ST/OBC candidates regarding age relaxation or number of attempts. It also dismissed the argument that certain states and Union Territories, including Jammu and Kashmir, have provided such relaxations to EWS candidates.

"No parity claim can be upheld between policies established by the Union and those adopted by individual states or Union Territories," the Bench stated, noting that service conditions are the exclusive domain of the respective recruiting authorities.

The court also pointed out that similar petitions had been previously dismissed by both the Delhi High Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court.

Concluding that the petitioners did not demonstrate any violation of constitutional or statutory provisions, the Delhi High Court declined to intervene in the existing policy framework.

"In these circumstances, the contested policy decision is clearly outside the permissible scope of judicial review and requires no interference," the Bench stated, ultimately dismissing the petition.