The Supreme Court has reiterated that the salary or income of parents employed in public sector undertakings (PSUs) or the private sector cannot, by itself, be the basis for determining whether an individual belongs to the creamy layer among Other Backward Classes (OBCs).
A bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and R Mahadevan reaffirmed its March 11 ruling on the OBC creamy layer criteria, maintaining that parental income alone cannot determine exclusion from OBC reservation benefits.
The bench also rejected the Centre’s plea seeking prospective application of the verdict, effectively declining to restrict its applicability to cases arising after the March 11 judgment.
SC’s observations
The ruling reinforces the court’s position that the nature and status of a parent’s employment, rather than salary or income alone, must be considered while determining creamy-layer status among OBCs.
“Since the process of allocation remains pending and there is no convincing or reasonable justification for deferring the implementation of the judgment dated 11.03.2026, the creamy layer principle, as interpreted in the said judgment, shall govern the allocation of services to OBC candidates selected through the Civil Services Examination, 2025,” said the bench.
The bench said the March 11, 2026, judgment 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,” it said.
The bench said 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 20.12.2016, 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, it added.
The bench made it clear that the judgment was applicable to the parties before the court and that already concluded seniority and promotions would not be reopened.
The bench said 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.