Bombay High Court Denies Age Relaxation for Maratha EWS Candidates in Judicial Services

The Bombay High Court has ruled against providing age relaxation in judicial services for Maratha candidates belonging to the Economically Weaker Section (EWS). The court dismissed a writ petition filed by four EWS candidates seeking age relaxation under the Maharashtra Judicial Services Rules, 2008. The candidates had initially applied under the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes Act, 2018 (SEBC Act), which was later struck down by the Supreme Court.

The division bench, comprising Justice AS Chandurkar and Justice Jitendra Jain, rejected the plea, stating that the petitioners, who had applied under the SEBC Act, could not be treated as belonging to the backward class after the Act's annulment. The court highlighted that the SEBC Act no longer existed, and the candidates were ineligible for age relaxation.

The petitioners had applied for the posts of Civil Judge, Junior Division, and Judicial Magistrate, First Class, under the SEBC Act. However, after the Supreme Court declared the SEBC Act unconstitutional in May 2021, the candidates were converted to the EWS category.

Despite clearing the exam, the petitioners' names did not appear in the appointment notification dated July 6, 2021. The state government allowed government service candidates who initially applied under the SEBC category to be considered under the EWS category. The petitioners, however, were informed that they were overage and couldn't be granted age relaxation.

The petitioners argued that the term "backward" in the 2008 Rules should include EWS candidates, not just socially and educationally backward classes. They sought appointment effective from July 6, 2021, with all consequential benefits.

The court clarified that age relaxation under 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 emphasized the distinction between socially and educationally backward classes and economically weaker sections under the Constitution.

Rejecting the petitioners' reliance on government resolutions for civil services recruitment, the court concluded that the judicial service is governed solely by the Maharashtra Judicial Service Rules, 2008. It also dismissed the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel, stating that recommendation and document verification do not grant a vested right to seek appointment. Ultimately, the court held that the petitioners were not justified in seeking appointments as they exceeded the age limit prescribed by the 2008 Rules.