Maratha Judicial Services Candidates Who Converted To EWS Category Ineligible For Age Relaxation Meant For Backward Classes: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that age relaxation in judicial services granted to backward-class candidates would not apply to Maratha candidates who had initially applied under the SEBC category and were converted to EWS after the Apex Court struck down the SEBC Act.

A division bench of Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain dismissed a writ petition filed by four Maratha candidates belonging to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) seeking age relaxation under the Maharashtra Judicial Services Rules, 2008 (2008 Rules). It said:

“The contention of the petitioners that since they belong to economically weaker section, the phrase “backward” used in proviso to Rule 5(3)(c) would include candidates belonging to economically weaker section is required to be rejected. The petitioners had made an application under the SEBC Act which was struck down by the Supreme Court...Therefore, the community notified under the said Act would not be treated as backward class since the said Act does not exit”, the court observed.

The Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) issued an advertisement on February 1, 2019, for the posts of Civil Judge, Junior Division and Judicial Magistrate, First Class specifying age limits for advocates and fresh law graduates. The petitioners applied under the backward category as per the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018 (SEBC Act), which granted reservation to the Maratha community.

However, the SEBC Act was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in May 2021.

It was submitted that despite clearing the exam, the petitioners' names did not appear in the appointment notification dated July 6, 2021. Subsequently, the state government permitted government service candidates who had initially applied under the SEBC category in the 2019 recruitment processes to be considered under the EWS category if they possessed EWS certificates.

The petitioners were informed that they were over-age as per Rule 5(3)(c) of the 2008 Rules, and couldn't be granted age relaxation as they did not belong to backward classes. Thus, the petitioners approached the High Court challenging this and seeking an appointment effective from July 6, 2021, with all consequential benefits.

The petitioners argued that the term "backward" in Rule 3(3)(c) of the 2008 Rules should encompass EWS candidates and not be confined to socially and educationally backward classes alone.

They contended that the completion of the appointment process within two months, as stipulated by Rule 6(4)(b) of the 2008 Rules, would have shielded them from the subsequent Apex Court order freezing appointments under reservation. They invoked the doctrine of promissory estoppel as their names were recommended by the MPSC.

The court said that the two-month time limit to complete the appointment process is recommendatory rather than strict, and failure to adhere to it does not automatically result in the appointment of candidates.

It was noted that Article 15(4) of the Constitution empowered the state to make special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes, and Article 15(6) allows for provisions benefiting economically weaker sections, determined based on family income and other indicators of economic disadvantage, distinct from those covered under Article 15(4) and (5).

Thus, the constitutional basis for identifying economically weaker sections and socially and educationally backward classes differs, said the court.

It further observed that Article 16(4) permits the state to provide reservations for any backward class of citizens inadequately represented in state services, and Article 16(6) allows for reservations in favor of economically weaker sections, excluding those covered under clause (4). The 124^th Amendment to the Constitution amended Articles 15 and 16 to extend benefits to economically weaker sections specifically.

Thus, the court concluded that economically weaker sections cannot be equated with backward classes, as they are recognized and treated separately by the Constitution.

The court clarified that age relaxation under proviso to Rule 5(3)(c) of the 2008 Rules is for candidates belonging to communities recognized as backward by the government and does not extend to candidates from economically weaker sections. It also noted that since the SEBC Act was struck down by the Supreme Court, the petitioners, who had applied under this act, were not eligible for consideration.

Accordingly, the court rejected the petitioners' reliance on various government resolutions intended for civil services recruitment, as the judicial service is governed solely by the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008. It also rejected the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel observing that mere recommendation and document verification do not grant a vested right to seek appointment.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the petitioners were not justified in seeking appointments as they are overage as per the 2008 Rules.

Case no. – Writ Petition No. 2728 of 2022

Case title – Ashwini Sanjay Kale and Ors v. State of Maharashtra

Click Here To Read/Download Order