EWS category cannot claim automatic parity with SC/ST/OBC categories regarding age and attempt relaxations.

The Petitioners, belonging to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category, challenged the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum (OM) dated 31.01.2019, the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) dated 19.09.2022, and the Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2024 Notification.

Following the 103rd Constitutional Amendment, which inserted Articles 15(6) and 16(6) to provide 10% reservation for EWS, the Government of India implemented the reservation but denied EWS candidates relaxations in upper age limits and the number of attempts typically accorded to SC/ST and OBC candidates.

The Petitioners argued that the absence of these concessions frustrates the objective of affirmative action and violates Article 14, especially since certain State Governments and the UT of Jammu & Kashmir provide such relaxations.

The Petitioners initially approached the Supreme Court but withdrew the petition to file before the High Court.

1. Whether the denial of age and attempt relaxations to EWS candidates in Central Government recruitments is discriminatory and violative of Articles 14 and 16(1) of the Constitution.

2. Whether the Court can exercise judicial review to mandate the Executive to frame policy granting concessions and relaxations to a specific reserved category.

3. Whether the EWS category is entitled to automatic parity with SC/ST/OBC categories regarding ancillary concessions.

The Court primarily applied Articles 14, 16(1), 16(4), and 16(6) of the Constitution of India.

It relied on the principle that judicial review of government policy is limited to checking for manifest arbitrariness or constitutional violations, as established in Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain and State of Punjab v. Ram Lubhaya Bagga.

The court further applied the doctrine that SC, ST, and OBC categories are constitutionally distinct from EWS, and concessions granted to one do not automatically create a right for another, as held in C. Udayakumar v. Union of India and Bir Singh v. Delhi Jal Board.

The Court reasoned that policy formulation regarding recruitment and reservations lies within the exclusive domain of the Executive and Legislature.

It observed that Article 16(6) treats EWS as a "residual class" distinct from the classes mentioned in Article 16(4) (SC/ST/OBC).

The Court distinguished the nature of backwardness, noting that SC/ST/OBC categories face "structural and enduring" social stigma rooted in history and caste, whereas EWS is based on "fluid" economic status that can change over time.

Consequently, the handicaps faced are not identical, and the State is not required to provide identical ancillary concessions.

The Court noted that the Executive had assessed quantifiable data—finding 450-631 applications per vacancy in the EWS category—to justify the decision not to grant further relaxations.

Regarding the UT of Jammu & Kashmir, the Court held that the Central Government is not bound by the policies of individual States or Union Territories due to administrative autonomy.

The Court concluded that the Petitioners failed to establish a right to a writ of mandamus for policy changes, as such determinations involve multifaceted evaluations of administrative feasibility and existing frameworks.

The challenge to the OM dated 31.01.2019, the FAQs dated 19.09.2022, and the CSE 2024 Notification was rejected.