New Delhi, Nov. 7 -- The Supreme Court on Friday held that its decision of March 11 which said that children of other backward classes (OBC) persons cannot be excluded from the benefit of reservation only on the basis of their income will not be a ground to reopen past appointments made under the OBC quota, giving a relief to the Centre which had opposed the retrospective operation of the judgment. Disposing the application filed by Centre on whether the law decided by this judgment will reopen OBC selections made over the past years, the court said that the application proceeded on an "erroneous assumption" as it only applied to the persons who were litigating before the court. The bench of justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan said, "The judgment dated March 11, 2026 determines the rights of the parties before this court.The ratio laid down in the judgment shall not, by itself, furnish a ground for reopening selections or appointments already concluded prior to the judgment." The court granted a further period of two months for the Centre to implement its judgment in favour of those persons who were before the court and who filed applications claiming that their matters are pending before various high courts and tribunals. "These directions are to be construed only in the context of the parties and applications dealt with in the judgment. The Government may, accordingly, accommodate the parties before this court who otherwise fulfil the requisite eligibility conditions," it said. At the same time, it clarified that if there are claims of persons asserting that they are similarly placed and whose cases are pending before any court, tribunal or other competent forum or authority, the same will be considered on merits by the concerned court or adjudicating body. The Centre had further sought a clarification whether the judgment will determine the service allocation under the Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2025, the results of which were announced on March 6, just days before the judgment was delivered. The court said, "Since the process of allocation remains pending and there is no convincing or reasonable justification for deferring the implementation of the judgment dated March 11, 2026, the creamy layer principle, as interpreted in the said judgment, shall govern the allocation of services to OBC candidates selected through the CSE, 2025." The government had even sought time of two years to undertake the exercise of establishing equivalence between posts in the formulation of creamy layer policy. The bench declined to prescribe any timeline as it said, "These matters fall within the domain of the executive and the legislature.The government remains at liberty to formulate its policy concerning reservation and the creamy layer criteria, in accordance with the Constitution and the principles laid down by this court." The bench felt that the clarification was unnecessary as it never directed the retrospective revision or reconsideration of past selections and appointments. "The present miscellaneous applications (by Centre) appear to proceed on the erroneous assumption that the benefit of the judgment operates retrospectively," the court said, adding further, "This Court did not direct the retrospective revision or reconsideration of selections, appointments, seniority or service allocations already concluded." The six-month period stipulated in the judgment was intended for implementation of the directions in relation to the respondent candidates and intervenors and cannot be construed as requiring a general exercise, it said. The decision came on an application filed by Centre claiming that the judgment's operation to all appointments and admissions made in the past will result in a "complete administrative chaos". The Centre led by solicitor general Tushar Mehta and additional solicitor general (ASG) Aishwarya Bhati had highlighted the potential impact on more than 0.669 million reserved vacancies, including 0.370 million OBC vacancies, filled over the preceding ten years across various government departments and public institutions as well as the consequential effects on seniority, pay, promotional prospects and the Foundation Course for CSE-2025 candidates. The Centre stated that the judgment had triggered additional litigation, including claims by similarly situated candidates who were not parties to the civil appeals....