MP High Court Dismisses EWS Candidate's Plea for Age Relaxation in ADPO Recruitment, Says No Statutory Framework Exists

The Madhya Pradesh High Court's Division Bench at Jabalpur held that an enabling constitutional provision under Articles 15(6) and 16(6) does not automatically entitle EWS candidates to age relaxation absent a state statutory framework.

A Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, comprising Justice Pranay Verma and Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, on 3 June 2026 dismissed a writ appeal filed by an Economically Weaker Section candidate who was prevented from applying for the post of Assistant District Public Prosecution Officer because the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission's recruitment advertisement granted age relaxation to SC, ST, and OBC candidates but not to EWS candidates. The bench, with the order authored by Justice Jai Kumar Pillai, affirmed the Single Bench's earlier dismissal and held that the grant of age relaxation is governed by rules framed by the State Government, and a constitutional enabling provision alone does not vest an absolute right to such concession in the absence of a statutory framework.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The appellant, Suryakant Tiwari, is a practising advocate enrolled with the State Bar Council of Madhya Pradesh (Enrolment No. MP-1436/2007) and practises at the Rewa Court. He holds a valid EWS certificate for the financial year 2025–26.

The Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission issued Advertisement No. 03/2026 dated 10 March 2026 for the ADPO eligibility examination, setting a maximum age limit of 40 years to be reckoned as on the cut-off date of 1 January 2027. The last date for submitting applications was 8 May 2026. Age relaxation was extended to SC, ST, and OBC candidates under the advertisement, but no such relaxation was provided to EWS candidates.

As on the cut-off date, the appellant was 43 years old — three years beyond the prescribed limit. The online portal treated him as age-barred and blocked submission of his application form. He had previously participated in the ADPO examination under Advertisement No. 03/2021 dated 7 June 2021, fulfilling all criteria at that time, but did not succeed. The fresh advertisement came five years after the earlier one.

Aggrieved, the appellant filed W.P. No. 17488/2026 before a Single Judge, which was dismissed on 6 May 2026. The Single Judge observed that the State Government had already framed rules to determine the categories entitled to reservation and relaxation, and there was no question of claiming concession before the court. The appellant then filed Writ Appeal No. 1811 of 2026 before the Division Bench.

The Legal Issue

The core question before the Division Bench was whether the court could issue a writ of mandamus directing the State to grant age relaxation to EWS candidates on parity with SC, ST, and OBC candidates, and whether the advertisement and the Single Bench's order suffered from any illegality.

The appellant sought three reliefs: setting aside the Single Bench's order, quashing or modifying Advertisement No. 03/2026 dated 10 March 2026 issued by the MPPSC, and a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to extend age relaxation to EWS candidates and permit provisional participation in the examination.

Arguments of the Appellant

The appellant argued that excluding EWS candidates from age relaxation, despite the grant of reservation under Articles 15(6) and 16(6) of the Constitution, was arbitrary, discriminatory, and violative of Articles 14 and 16. He contended that the State had created an irrational classification among similarly situated reserved category candidates — SC/ST/OBC vis-à-vis EWS — without any intelligible differentia, amounting to hostile discrimination.

He further argued that providing reservation without incidental benefits such as age relaxation renders the constitutional benefit under Articles 15(6) and 16(6) wholly illusory and defeats the purpose of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment.

On the question of delay, the appellant pointed out that he exceeded the age limit by only three years solely because of the five-year administrative gap between the 2021 and 2026 advertisements. He argued that the respondents could not take advantage of their own inaction to deprive eligible candidates.

The appellant also highlighted that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Rajasthan Staff Selection Board had expressly granted 5 to 10 years of age relaxation to EWS candidates, demonstrating that such a benefit is administratively feasible. He additionally relied on interim orders passed by coordinate benches of the same court in W.P. No. 38536/2025 and W.P. No. 3294/2026, where similarly situated EWS candidates were permitted to participate provisionally, urging judicial consistency.

Arguments of the Respondents

The State and the MPPSC defended the advertisement on the ground that the grant of age relaxation and concessions is entirely a matter of statutory rules and state policy. They submitted that the State Government had already framed specific rules determining the categories entitled to reservation and age relaxation, and the recruiting agency was bound to follow those statutory mandates strictly.

The respondents further contended that courts cannot issue a writ of mandamus directing the State to grant age relaxation contrary to existing rules, as policy decisions regarding the extent of concessions fall within the exclusive domain of the executive.

How the Division Bench Reasoned

The bench began by reaffirming that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 in matters of state policy regarding reservations and age relaxations is well-settled: courts do not act as appellate authorities over policy decisions of the State unless they are manifestly arbitrary or unconstitutional.

The bench relied on a judgment of a Division Bench of the same court in W.P. No. 14695/2024, which had crystallised the principles governing the grant of concessions and reservations. That judgment had held that reservations and relaxations to OBC candidates under Articles 15 and 16 operate through enabling provisions, and that the lists maintained by the State Government and the Central Government are treated separately for their respective purposes. A community not recognised in the Central List cannot claim reservation or concession for services under the Union, and similarly, the State's own notified list operates only for State Government purposes.

Applying those principles to the present case, the bench held that the grant of age relaxation and incidental concessions is governed by the specific rules framed by the State Government. An enabling constitutional provision — such as Articles 15(6) and 16(6) introduced by the 103rd Constitutional Amendment — does not automatically vest an absolute right in the appellant to claim age relaxation in the absence of a statutory framework giving effect to it.

The bench found that the parameters for determining which categories are eligible for such relaxations fall squarely within the State's rule-making authority. It found no infirmity in the approach adopted by the respondent authorities or by the Single Bench.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed Writ Appeal No. 1811 of 2026, affirming the Single Bench's order dated 6 May 2026. No order as to costs was made.