New Delhi, Nov. 6 -- The Supreme Court on Friday refused to dilute the effect of its ruling on the creamy-layer criteria for Other Backward Classes (OBCs), maintaining that the salary or income of a parent working in the private sector or a public sector undertaking (PSU) cannot alone determine whether a candidate is excluded from reservation benefits.
A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and R Mahadevan rejected the Centre's request to apply the March 11, 2026, judgment only to future cases, observing that there was "no convincing or reasonable justification" for delaying its implementation.
The court clarified that its earlier ruling established the rights of the candidates who had approached it, recognising them as belonging to the OBC non-creamy layer and making them eligible for reservation benefits, including the consequential placement and allotment of posts in the selection processes they had participated in.
However, the bench made clear that granting these benefits would not disturb the seniority of other employees or reopen recruitment exercises and appointments that had already been completed. It also referred to a December 20, 2016, communication from the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), which stated that appointments arising from the Civil Services Examination 2016 were subject to the outcome of appeals pending before the court.
The judges further clarified that individuals claiming similar treatment could pursue their cases before courts, tribunals or other competent authorities. Their claims would have to be assessed independently, with the interpretation of the 1993 Office Memorandum (OM) and a 2004 government communication in the March 11 judgment available for consideration.
The government has been given additional time to implement the ruling. While the Supreme Court had initially allowed six months on March 11, it extended the deadline by another two months on Friday.
The bench also left the government free to frame its reservation and creamy-layer policies in accordance with constitutional requirements and the principles established in its judgment. It declined to set deadlines for determining equivalence between government posts or consulting stakeholders, saying these decisions fell within the responsibilities of the executive and legislature.
In its plea, the Centre had invoked Article 142 of the Constitution, arguing that prospective application would prevent disruption to ongoing and completed recruitment exercises. It warned that implementing the ruling retrospectively could produce unintended hardship for employees and appointees who were not parties to the litigation and lead to administrative difficulties.
The March 11 verdict in Union of India vs Rohith Nathan held that the status and category of a parent's post, alongside the prescribed income or wealth test under the 1993 OM, must be considered when determining creamy-layer eligibility.
Published by HT Digital Content Services with permission from Millennium Post.