New Delhi, Oct 25 The Centre is awaiting directives from the Supreme Court on the implementation challenges arising from the top court’s March 11 judgment concerning criteria for determining the creamy layer status of Other Backward Classes (OBC) civil services candidates, sources said on Sunday.
The Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) has sought directions to allow the government to proceed with service allocation to the 958 candidates recommended by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) for CSE-2025 on the basis of the OBC creamy-layer determination applied before the March 11 verdict.
The DoPT’s plea arises from the top court’s judgement in Union of India vs Rohith Nathan case.
In its verdict, the top court, among other things, held that ‘creamy layer’ status for reservation of OBCs cannot be decided solely based on parental income and treating similarly placed employees of private entities and PSUs differently from government employees, for deciding reservation, would amount to hostile discrimination.
According to sources, the department and all training institutes are fully prepared to allocate services to candidates of the Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2025 and start the foundation course at the earliest.
The delay in the course commencement will have no bearing on the seniority, gradation or other service conditions of CSE-2025 candidates, they said.
The CSE 2025 results were declared on March 6 — five days before the judgment was delivered.
In the wake of the results, the DoPT examined the implementation challenges arising from the Supreme Court’s March 11 judgment, covering implications for service and cadre allocation, existing seniority and gradation, past recruitment, and the implementation of the OBC reservation policy.
In view of these challenges, on August 24, the department filed a Miscellaneous Application with the top court, seeking clarification and directions on implementation of the judgment, the sources said.
The results of CSE-2025 were declared while service allocation for the examination was yet to be finalised.
Since service allocation is difficult to undo once made, the DoPT has sought directions from the Supreme Court before proceeding further, the sources said.
The judgment dismissed the civil appeals preferred by the Union of India and directed the creation of supernumerary posts to accommodate the respondents and intervenors in the case within six months, in accordance with the principles laid down by the court.
During the intervening period, the DoPT examined the judgment’s implications for various recruitments, including service and cadre allocation based on the CSE-2025, as well as orders passed by various high courts and tribunals.
The matter required holistic examination in consultation with stakeholders, including the UPSC, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, and the Ministry of Law and Justice, the sources said.
The exercise also involved collating data of candidates across fourteen CSE years and assessing the implications for existing seniority and gradation, potential cascading claims, and the OBC reservation policy across the country, they said.
The department observed that implementation of the judgment could have a widespread impact on the OBC reservation policy across the country, as well as on recruitments undertaken by other Union government departments and state governments.
The DoPT also identified concerns regarding the absence of a demonstrable criterion, such as salary, to identify the creamy layer among OBC candidates whose parents are employed outside government service or constitutional posts.
It observed that such absence could give rise to concerns of compliance with Article 14 (equality before law) of the Constitution of India and may lead to further litigation, they said.
Implementation could affect past recruitments conducted by UPSC, the Staff Selection Commission (SSC), Railway Recruitment Boards (RRBs), the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection (IBPS) and other agencies, the sources said.
Requests for retrospective service allocation could arise, and past decisions concerning candidates who were denied creamy layer status based on salary could be reassessed, they said.
Another significant consideration is the potential impact on the existing seniority and gradation of officers already in service.
The respondents and intervenors could receive automatic batch seniority corresponding to their selection years, without undergoing the due promotion process involving performance appraisal, work experience and vacancies, the sources said.
The DoPT has also noted that implementation would adversely affect the application of the exclusion criteria for OBC non-creamy layer (NCL) status and could be discriminatory towards other OBC candidates who relied on the existing government instructions and guidelines and, accordingly, did not approach the competent authority for obtaining OBC NCL certificates, they said.
Retrospective implementation could necessitate service reallocation and cadre changes for officers who have been serving for over a decade, potentially resulting in an unending process of service allocation and cadre fixation, the sources said.
The implications would not be limited to direct recruits through CSE, as similar issues could also arise in relation to admissions to higher educational institutions where decisions have already attained finality, they said.
The Centre had on September 8, 1993, issued an Office Memorandum, specifying who will be creamy layer among OBCs, and a clarificatory letter followed on October 14, 2004.
The top court noted that while the memorandum excluded income from salary and agricultural income from the income/wealth test to determine creamy layer status, the October 14 letter directed inclusion of salary income of PSU and private sector employees.
“It is evident from a comprehensive reading of the 1993 OM along with the clarificatory letter dated October 14, 2004 that income from salaries alone cannot be the sole criterion to decide whether a candidate falls within the creamy layer.
“The status as well as the category of post to which a candidate’s parent or parents belong is essential. Mere determination of the status of a candidate as to whether he/she falls within the creamy or the non-creamy layer of the OBCs cannot be decided solely on the basis of the income,” the apex court said.
(PTI News)
