NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday clarified that its March 11 ruling on determining the creamy layer status of Other Backward Class (OBC) candidates would not reopen completed appointments, promotions or seniority positions.The top court said cases that are still pending would be examined individually by the courts, based on their merits and the candidates’ eligibility.A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice R Mahadevan delivered the ruling while hearing an application filed by the Centre seeking clarity on how the March 11 judgment should be implemented. The Court also extended the deadline for compliance with its earlier directions by eight weeks.The clarification comes after the Centre raised concerns that applying the March 11 ruling retrospectively could unsettle years of government recruitments, service allocations and admissions to educational institutions.
Centre flags concerns over past recruitments
In its application, the government argued that applying the revised interpretation to past cases could affect appointments and admissions made under the rules and eligibility criteria in force at the time. It warned that this could create uncertainty over OBC-NCL status, seniority, service conditions and career progression.“Retrospective or belated application of a changed eligibility criterion may unsettle appointments and admissions made under the rules and certificates prevailing at the relevant time and may create uncertainty regarding OBC-NCL status, seniority, service conditions and career progression. It may also affect admissions to Central and State educational institutions, universities and professional institutions. The Applicant therefore respectfully submits that the temporal operation of the Judgment requires clarification so as to avoid unsettling completed selections, appointments and admissions and the consequential rights arising therefrom”, the plea stated as per LiveLaw.The Centre said more than 5.69 lakh reserved vacancies, including 3.70 lakh OBC vacancies, were filled in Central government ministries, departments and their subordinate offices between 2016 and 2025.These recruitments were conducted under the August 8, 1993 Office Memorandum and subsequent government instructions.It argued that retrospective implementation could also necessitate a review of service allocations made through Civil Services Examinations since 2012. This could potentially lead to changes in the services and cadres allotted to officers already in government service, affecting their seniority and promotion prospects.The government also flagged possible complications in recruitment examinations conducted by the Railways, banks, Department of Posts and paramilitary organisations. It said similar disputes could arise in 18 States and Union Territories that follow the 1993 guidelines.The Centre further pointed out that candidates who become eligible for technical services several years after an examination might no longer meet the prescribed physical and medical standards. It also warned that reopening admissions granted to lakhs of students in universities and professional institutions could create difficulties, particularly where there are no provisions for additional seats.
Dispute over salary-based creamy layer criteria
The clarification application stems from the Supreme Court’s March 11 judgment on how the creamy layer among OBC candidates should be identified.The Court had ruled that a parent’s salary alone cannot be used to determine whether an OBC candidate belongs to the creamy layer. The nature and category of the post held by the parents must also be taken into account.The dispute centred on two government instructions, the Office Memorandum issued on August 8, 1993, and a subsequent clarification dated October 14, 2004.The 1993 memorandum laid down the criteria for identifying the OBC creamy layer. It did not make a parent’s salary the sole basis for exclusion from reservation benefits. Under the applicable Income/Wealth Test, salary and agricultural income are excluded from the income calculation, while the status and category of the parent’s post remain relevant under the prescribed criteria.The 2004 clarification dealt with employees working in organisations such as public sector undertakings (PSUs), banks, universities and private companies, where the equivalence of their posts with government positions had not been established. It provided for consideration of parents’ salary income in such cases.The Supreme Court held that the 2004 clarification could not introduce a new condition that was not part of the original 1993 policy. It also observed that treating children of PSU and private-sector employees differently from those of similarly placed government employees could amount to hostile discrimination and violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before the law and equal opportunity in public employment.
Centre seeks time to frame uniform mechanism
The government has maintained that it is not challenging or seeking a review of the March 11 judgment. Instead, it wants clarity on when the ruling should apply and how its directions should be implemented.The Centre has sought two years to consult stakeholders, establish equivalence between posts in non-government organisations and government positions, and develop a uniform mechanism for determining creamy-layer status in cases where such equivalence has not been established.It has also asked the SC not to disturb completed selections, appointments, service and cadre allocations, seniority positions and admissions made under the eligibility rules applicable at the time. The government has separately sought clarity on candidates who were already participating in examinations or recruitment processes when the March 11 judgment was delivered.In a separate interim application, the Centre sought permission to proceed with service allocation for 958 candidates recommended by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) in the Civil Services Examination 2025, using the existing 1993 framework while the clarification application remained pending.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
The government argued that any further delay would push back the candidates’ Foundation Course, training and induction schedules. It said the resulting disruption could not be reversed even if the Court eventually accepted its position.
About The Author
