SC rejects Centre’s plea on OBC creamy layer:Parents’ income alone cannot determine reservation eligibility, rules court

The Supreme Court has rejected the Centre’s plea seeking a two-year extension to implement its ruling on the OBC creamy layer criteria for UPSC examinations. The court said parents’ salary or income alone cannot determine whether a candidate falls under the creamy layer. The court reiterated that the social status of parents and the nature of their employment must also be considered while determining a candidate’s eligibility for OBC reservation benefits. The Centre had sought additional time to frame a mechanism for determining the equivalence of posts in Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) and private-sector organisations with government positions. Rejecting the Centre’s request, the Supreme Court granted it an additional eight weeks to comply with the judgment. What is the OBC creamy layer case? The dispute involves candidates whose parents worked in PSUs, banks and similar institutions. These candidates had approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), seeking OBC Non-Creamy Layer benefits in the Civil Services Examination. The tribunal had directed the government to appoint them under the OBC reservation category. In 1993, the Centre issued an Office Memorandum (OM) defining the criteria for identifying the OBC creamy layer. It stated that salaries and agricultural income would not be included while calculating the income limit. However, a clarification issued on October 14, 2004, provided that the salaries and income of employees working in PSUs and the private sector would be considered. The government relied on this clarification to include the salaries of the candidates’ parents while calculating their income, resulting in the denial of reservation benefits. Supreme Court said 2004 letter cannot override main policy During a hearing on March 14 this year, the Supreme Court observed that the 2004 clarification could not override the original policy. It also said that treating government employees differently from PSU employees was discriminatory. The court held that if the children of government employees receive exemptions based on their parents’ positions, excluding children of PSU employees from reservation solely on the basis of their parents’ salaries would violate the right to equality. The Supreme Court had directed the government to reconsider the candidates’ claims within six months. It also said that separate posts could be created, if necessary, to accommodate eligible candidates. ​