The Supreme Court on Friday clarified that its March 11 judgment, which said Other Backward Classes (OBC) candidates cannot be excluded from reservation benefits solely based on their parents’ salary income, will not apply to past appointments after the government opposed the retrospective operation.
The government filed an application in August, saying that the judgment’s operation to all past appointments and admissions would lead to complete administrative chaos. It requested two years to work out equivalent posts similar to Group A and B officers in the government for identifying the creamy layer among those employed in public sector undertakings (PSUs) and private employment. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta and additional solicitor general Aishwarya Bhati argued that the application does not question the judgment. The court passed judgment in March on the Union government’s appeals against Madras high court orders. The high court permitted an OBC candidate to be treated as a non-creamy layer candidate, which furthered his career prospects. The candidate recommended for the Indian Police Service under the OBC reservation became entitled to allocation under the Indian Foreign Service.
It held that its judgment will govern service allocation under the 2025 civil services examination, since the process was ongoing when the judgment was pronounced.
The court said the government is at liberty to have its own policy. “The Union government is only praying for a limited deferral of the operationalisation of the law laid down by this court for a period of two years so that the competing rights can be adjusted consistent with the administrative contingencies and an effective equivalence exercise is carried out,” Bhati argued.
The Supreme Court approved the high court order. It discarded the Union government’s objection that his father worked with a multinational, had a high income, and would come under the creamy layer. Both candidates argued that their parents were excluded on income criteria. It added that this would amount to equals being treated unequally.
The March judgment held that the evolution of the non-creamy layer principle demonstrates that both the 1993 office memorandum and 2004 letter preserve the primacy of status- based exclusion. Because of his father’s PSU employment, which fetched a higher income, it said another candidate was entitled to OBC reservation in the civil services after he was initially refused it.
They said creamy layer classification was based on posts, and Group A or B, C or D officers were excluded as creamy layer. They argued that similar “equalisation” based on posts should apply to OBC parents working in PSUs and private employment. The March judgment said treating the children of those employed in PSUs or private employment as being excluded from the benefit of reservation only based on their salary income, and without reference to their posts (whether Group A or B, or Group C or D), would lead to hostile discrimination between parties similarly placed. It said they confine economic exclusion to those falling under the sixth category. “Salary income cannot be mechanically aggregated in a manner that defeats the constitutional objective articulated in Indra Sawhney,” the court said.
