MP High Court Dismisses Petitions Seeking Parity in Relaxations for EWS and State List OBCs in Public Employment

Jabalpur: The Madhya Pradesh High Court, in a significant judgment, has dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging executive instructions and recruitment rules that denied age and attempt relaxations to candidates from the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) category, similar to those granted to Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC). The court also rejected the plea seeking parity in the number of attempts for State list OBCs (not in the Central list) with Central list OBCs for services under the Union.

The judgment, delivered by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain (Justice Vivek Jain authoring the order), held that EWS is a distinct category constitutionally recognized by the 103rd Amendment, different from the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) covered under Articles 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution.

Case Background and Petitioners' Arguments

The petitions, led by Aaditya Narayan Pandey (W.P. No. 14695 of 2024) and others, contested instructions issued by the Government of India and the State of Madhya Pradesh, as well as Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) notifications, arguing that while reservation was provided for EWS (10% under Articles 15(6) and 16(6)), other relaxations like age limit and number of attempts were unfairly withheld.

Petitioners contended that EWS, being a recognized class, should receive similar concessions as SC, ST, and OBC categories, who also face impediments, albeit of a different nature (economic vs. social/educational). Senior Advocate Shri Kapil Sibbal, along with other counsel, argued that denying these relaxations created an artificial discrimination between different reserved categories.

A specific point raised was concerning State list OBCs who do not figure in the Central list. It was argued that these candidates, even if eligible for EWS reservation in Central services, were deprived of the 9 attempts allowed to Central list OBCs in the Civil Services Examination (CSE). Referring to the 105th Constitutional Amendment and a Ministry of Social Justice booklet, petitioners argued that State list OBCs are equally backward and the distinction made by UPSC was discriminatory and unreasonable.

Respondents' Submissions

Representing the Union of India, Additional Solicitor General Shri S.D. Sanjay argued that SC, ST, OBC, and EWS are constitutionally recognized distinct categories. Concessions given to one cannot be automatically claimed by another. He submitted that government OMs issued under the 103rd amendment did not provide for age relaxation for EWS, and this was a policy decision based on various parameters, including the high number of applicants per vacancy in the EWS category (averaging around 500). He emphasized that social backwardness and economic parameters are different considerations for granting relaxations.

Shri Naresh Kaushik, Senior Advocate for UPSC, supported the Union's stand, highlighting that for services under the Union, only the Central list of OBCs is relevant as per the Constitutional scheme. He argued that the distinction between Central and State list OBCs is based on the purpose for which the lists are maintained – Central for Union services, State for State services – as clarified by Article 342-A, especially after the 105th Amendment. He contended that UPSC FAQs cited by petitioners merely clarified eligibility for EWS reservation, not entitlement to OBC relaxations.

Additional Advocate General Smt. Janhavi Pandit defended the State Government's instructions, which also do not provide age relaxation for EWS candidates.

Court's Analysis and Decision

The High Court addressed the two issues separately.

On EWS Relaxations: The bench noted that Articles 15(6) and 16(6) explicitly create EWS as a class "other than the classes mentioned in clauses (4) and (5)". This constitutional language reinforces the distinction between EWS and SEBCs (SC, ST, OBC). The court reasoned that the handicaps faced by EWS candidates (economic, variable) are different from those faced by SEBCs (social/educational backwardness, often tied to immutable caste). Therefore, not extending the same relaxations to EWS as to SEBCs does not constitute hostile discrimination.

Citing Supreme Court precedents like State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas , Indra Sawhney v. Union of India , and C. Udayakumar v. Union of India , the court reiterated that Articles 15 and 16 are enabling provisions, and the State has the discretion to formulate policies regarding reservations, relaxations, and concessions. Courts cannot issue a mandamus to compel the government to grant such benefits unless the policy is arbitrary, unconstitutional, or utterly discriminatory. The bench also referred to the Supreme Court's judgment in Janhit Abhiyan v. Union of India , which upheld the constitutional validity of the 103rd amendment and the distinction it draws. Decisions by the Bombay and Delhi High Courts dismissing similar pleas for EWS age relaxation were also noted.

On State vs. Central List OBCs: The court delved into the history and constitutional position of OBC lists. It noted that Article 342-A, particularly after the 105th Amendment, clearly provides for separate lists maintained by the Central Government (for its purposes) and State Governments (for their own purposes). The explanation to Article 342-A and Article 366(26C) reinforce this distinction.

The bench concluded that a community notified as OBC in a State list but not in the Central list is not recognized as OBC for the purpose of services under the Union. Consequently, such candidates cannot claim reservations or concessions meant for OBCs in Central government employment. Extending relaxations like the number of attempts based on a State list when the candidate is competing for Union services would run counter to the clear constitutional scheme.

In light of these findings, the High Court found no grounds to interfere with the executive instructions or recruitment notifications.

"The petitioners have failed to make out any case to issue a writ of mandamus to grant age relaxation to the members of EWS category at par with SEBCs," the court stated, adding, "The executive instructions of the State and the Central Government cannot be interfered with only on the ground that such concessions and relaxations have been extended to SEBCs... but not extended to EWS categories." Similarly, it found the argument for extending Central OBC attempts to State list OBCs for Union services untenable based on the constitutional framework.

The petitions were accordingly dismissed.