The Supreme Court on Friday reaffirmed its March 11 verdict which had held that the salary or income of a parent employed in a PSU or the private sector could not by itself be treated as the determinative criterion for creamy-layer exclusion for the Other Backward Classes (OBC).
NEW DELHI — The Supreme Court on Friday reaffirmed its March 11 verdict which had held that the salary or income of a parent employed in a PSU or the private sector could not by itself be treated as the determinative criterion for creamy-layer exclusion for the Other Backward Classes (OBC).
A bench of Justices P S Narasimha and R Mahadevan also rejected the Centre's plea to make the verdict applicable only prospectively, saying there was "no convincing or reasonable justification" for deferring the implementation of the judgment.
"The judgment dated March 11, 2026 determines the rights of the parties before this court. It holds that the respondent candidates fall within the non-creamy layer of the OBC category and are entitled to the benefit of reservation together with consequential placement and allotment of posts in the selection processes in which they participated.
"The grant of such benefit shall not, by itself, operate to the detriment of the seniority of any other person or entail the reopening of selections or appointments already concluded. In this regard, it is relevant to note that by its letter dated December 20, 2016, the DoPT had clarified that the selections pursuant to the Civil Services Examination, 2016 were subject to the outcome of the appeals pending before this court," the bench said.
The top court clarified that the judgment was applicable to the parties before the court and that already concluded seniority and promotions would not be reopened.
"The claims of persons asserting that they are similarly placed, whose cases are pending before any court, tribunal or other competent forum or authority may be considered on their own merits by the concerned adjudicating body or authority.
"This court expresses no opinion on the merits of such claims, save to reiterate that the interpretation of the 1993 OM (office memorandum) and the 2004 letter laid down in the judgment may be taken into consideration while adjudicating such claims in accordance with law," the bench said.
On March 11, the top court had given the government six months to implement the judgment which was extended by two months on Friday.
The apex court said 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 the court.
"This court is not inclined to prescribe any timeline for establishing equivalence between posts or consulting stakeholders in the formulation of the creamy layer policy, as these matters fall within the domain of the executive and the legislature," the bench said.
The Centre had sought a prospective application of its March 11 verdict.
In a case titled Union of India vs Rohith Nathan, the apex court held on March 11 that the salary or income of a parent employed in a public sector undertaking or the private sector could not by itself be treated as the determinative criterion for creamy-layer exclusion.
The status and the category of the parent's post, along with the prescribed income or wealth test, were to be considered in accordance with the 1993 OM.
"It is submitted that this court has power under Article 142 of the Constitution to declare its judgment prospective. If the judgment is not given a prospective effect, it will entail several harsh and unjust unintended consequences on employees or appointees who were not even parties to the litigation and complete administrative chaos.
"It is, therefore, prayed that the judgment dated March 11, 2026, be given a prospective effect so that ongoing and past recruitment processes are not affected," the Centre has said in its plea.