EWS can't seek age relaxation, enhanced attempts like SC,ST, OBC: Delhi High Court

EWS can't seek age relaxation, enhanced attempts like SC,ST, OBC: Delhi High Court

## Delhi High Court Upholds Differential Age and Attempt Relaxations for EWS Candidates

**New Delhi** – The Delhi High Court has ruled that candidates belonging to the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) are not entitled to the same age and attempt relaxations in competitive examinations as those provided to Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC). The court’s decision clarifies that the current policy, which differentiates these relaxations, is neither arbitrary nor unconstitutional.

A division bench of the High Court, in its recent judgment, underscored a fundamental distinction between the historical and systemic disadvantages faced by caste-based reserved categories and the economic criteria applied to the EWS category. The bench observed that the deprivation experienced by individuals from economically weaker sections, while significant, does not stem from the same nature of historical discrimination that has impacted SC, ST, and OBC communities. Consequently, the court found no legal basis to equate the relaxation benefits offered to these distinct categories.

The legal challenge had argued that the exclusion of EWS candidates from age and attempt relaxations, while extending them to SC, ST, and OBC candidates, constituted unfair treatment. Petitioners contended that the economic hardship faced by EWS individuals should warrant similar compensatory measures in the competitive examination landscape. However, the court’s deliberation focused on the legislative intent and the rationale behind the reservation policies.

The court’s reasoning highlighted that the reservation for SC, ST, and OBC categories is rooted in addressing historical injustices and ensuring representation for communities that have faced persistent social and economic marginalization over centuries. The relaxations in age and attempts are considered integral to facilitating their participation and overcoming the cumulative disadvantages they have endured.

In contrast, the EWS category was introduced through a constitutional amendment to address economic disparities, aiming to provide opportunities to those who, despite not belonging to SC, ST, or OBC, are financially disadvantaged. The court acknowledged the importance of economic upliftment but maintained that the nature of the disadvantage and the historical context differ significantly.

The bench meticulously examined the government’s policy and found that the decision not to extend the same age and attempt relaxations to the EWS category was a conscious policy choice based on a reasoned assessment of the distinct needs and historical contexts of each category. The court concluded that this differential treatment, in itself, did not render the policy “mala fide, arbitrary, or unconstitutional.” It emphasized that different relaxations for different reserved categories are permissible as long as there is a rational nexus between the classification and the object sought to be achieved.

This ruling provides clarity on the application of reservation policies in public employment and educational institutions. It reinforces the principle that while addressing economic backwardness is crucial, the specific mechanisms and benefits extended to different categories must be grounded in their unique historical, social, and economic circumstances. The court’s judgment serves to uphold the existing framework of reservations while acknowledging the distinct nature of the challenges addressed by each category.

This article was created based on information from various sources and rewritten for clarity and originality.