The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Jabalpur Bench) has held that grant of age relaxation and incidental concessions is governed by the specific rules framed by the State Government, and an enabling constitutional provision does not automatically vest an absolute right in the appellant (EWS candidate) to claim age relaxation absent a statutory framework. The parameters for determining the categories eligible for such relaxations fall squarely within the domain of the State’s rule-making authority.
Since the State Government had already framed rules determining the categories to which reservation and relaxation/concession are to be given, there was no question of claiming concession and reservation before the Court. On that basis, the Court found no infirmity in the approach adopted by the respondent authorities or in the order of the Single Bench.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Pranay Verma and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai noted the contention of the appellant that exclusion of EWS candidates from age relaxation, despite grant of reservation under Articles 15(6) and 16(6), was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16, and that reservation without incidental benefits such as age relaxation rendered the constitutional benefit wholly illusory and ineffective. The respondents, on the other hand, submitted that grant of age relaxation and concessions is entirely a matter of statutory rules and State policy, and that recruitment agencies are bound to follow the rules framed by the State Government strictly.
The Bench observed that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 in matters of State policy regarding reservations and age relaxations is well-settled, and courts do not act as appellate authorities over policy decisions of the State unless they are manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional. The Bench further noted that the core issue was whether a mandamus could be issued directing the State to grant age relaxation to EWS candidates on parity with other reserved categories, and reiterated that reservations and relaxations/concessions operate within the constitutional and statutory framework applicable to the relevant authority, and that concessions cannot be claimed dehors such framework.
Briefly, the appellant challenged the order passed by the Single Bench, whereby the writ petition against non-grant of age relaxation to Economically Weaker Section (EWS) candidates in the recruitment process for the post of Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer was dismissed. The appellant, a practicing advocate belonging to the EWS category and holding a valid EWS certificate for FY 2025-26, sought setting aside of the impugned order, quashing/modification of Advertisement No. 03/2026 issued by MPPSC, and a writ of mandamus to extend age relaxation to EWS candidates and permit provisional participation in the examination.
Under the advertisement, the maximum age limit was 40 years as on Jan 01, 2027; while age relaxation was granted to SC/ST/OBC candidates, no such relaxation was provided to EWS candidates. As the appellant was 43 years old on the cut-off date, the online portal treated him as age-barred and prevented submission of the application form.
