Jabalpur, March 18 : In a significant ruling, the Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a bunch of petitions requesting age relaxation for Economically Weaker Section (EWS) candidates in the UPSC examinations.

The court also dismissed the petitioners' claim of relaxation in the number of attempts to those castes or communities who figure in the State list of OBC (Other backward classes) but not in the Central List for the purpose of CSE- 2024 and CSE-2025 examination conducted by UPSC (Union Public Service Commission).

A bench of Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Vivek Jain clarified that, unlike Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC), there is no provision for such relaxations for EWS under the existing framework.

'The judiciary's role in such cases is limited to assessing whether policies violate fundamental rights or constitutional provisions. Courts cannot dictate policy changes unless the policy exhibits hostile discrimination,' the bench observed.

The court also turned down the plea to grant nine attempts in the UPSC examination to State OBC candidates, as is allowed for Central OBC candidates.

The petitions were filed by Aditya Narayan Pandey from Maihar, Madhya Pradesh, and several others, seeking concessions for EWS candidates.

Meanwhile, the UPSC preliminary examination for 979 vacancies is scheduled to take place on May 25, 2025.

Kapil Sibal, senior counsel for the petitioners, argued that the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) constitute a distinct class under the 103rd Constitutional Amendment. He argued that while Scheduled Castes (SC), Scheduled Tribes (ST), and Other Backward Classes (OBC) benefit from age relaxations and additional attempts in competitive exams, EWS members, who face similar challenges, are denied these benefits.

SD Sanjay, Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India, opposed the plea. He emphasised that reservations for SC, ST, and OBC under constitutional provisions differ from those for EWS under two Articles introduced by the 103rd Amendment.

He argued that 'each category is distinct,' and concessions for one cannot automatically extend to another. The Government of India, under the 103rd Amendment, did not provide EWS candidates with relaxations in age or attempts, citing no constitutional requirement for uniform concessions. EWS reservations are limited to individuals not covered under SC/ST/OBC reservations and with an annual family income below Rs 8,00,000, as per the constitutional scheme. Ultimately, both Central and State Governments have refrained from granting age or attempt relaxations to EWS candidates, the consul reasoned.

'Constitutional courts, during judicial reviews, cannot compel governments to provide such concessions unless clear discriminatory practices are identified,' the bench ruled.

/IANS