NEW DELHI: The Centre is in a tangle over Supreme Court’s landmark judgement on “creamy layer” that paved the way for induction in the elite civil services of OBC candidates who had cleared the examinations over past ten years but were denied appointments.On Aug 25, govt approached the apex court seeking clarification on the Rohit Nathan judgement that laid down that “salary” could not be added to the “income” to determine if a candidate from a PSU background falls in the “creamy layer” – like it is done for OBCs from non-PSU families. Govt, while seeking that it be allowed to go ahead with allocation of service for Civil Services-2025 without implementing the Nathan judgement, also raised questions about the SC’s definition of “creamy layer”.But barely a week ago, Centre told Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) that it intended to execute the SC order of March 11. “A decision has been made to implement the decision in terms of the judgement rendered by SC in Union of India vs Rohit Nathan,” the ASG told the principal bench of CAT.On Aug 19, CAT was hearing a contempt petition against Centre as an OBC candidate, Basant Singh, had sought that the bench enforce its earlier order for his induction in civil services. His case was similar to those of candidates in whose favour SC delivered the Nathan judgement.“It is further submitted by the learned ASG that 56 similarly placed candidates are also being considered along with the applicant,” CAT quoted the ASG as submitting. CAT put off the case based on Centre’s undertaking that necessary steps were being taken to implement the Nathan judgement.The apparently contradictory stands taken by govt within a week’s interval have disappointed OBC candidates who felt the SC judgement in March had ended their wait for induction in civil services.The case pertains to department of personnel and training (DoPT)’s differential implementation of the “creamy layer” criterion for OBCs from a PSU background and others. While, as per 1993 office memorandum, “salary” and “agricultural income” are not included in computing the “income” of a family, DoPT has been taking “salary” into consideration for candidates with parents in PSUs. Govt has cited the absence of “equivalence of posts” – categorising posts in PSUs, banks, universities, etc.
Share your thoughts in the comments
Be respectful · TOI community guidelines
as “Group A, B, C, D” – as the source of confusion.But, according to guidelines, while Group A and Group B are ineligible for quotas, others are eligible if their “annual income” does not exceed Rs 8 lakh.After a long wait, following orders by three high courts in support of the candidates, SC ruled in March that “salary” cannot be the criterion for determination of “creamy layer” for any category as per the 1993 judgement and that candidates who have suffered should be inducted in civil services.
