The Supreme Court today agreed to consider setting up a special bench to hear the Centre’s plea on OBC creamy-layer criteria. The Centre is seeking clarification on the applicability of the March 11 judgment of the Apex Court for candidates of the Civil Services Examination 2025.
The Department of Personnel and Training, DoPT, has sought directions allowing the government to proceed with service allocation for the 958 candidates recommended by the Union Public Service Commission. The DoPT wants the allocation to be based on the OBC creamy-layer criteria applied before the March 11 verdict.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant, along with Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, that the DoPT had filed a miscellaneous application in a disposed-of matter seeking urgent directions. He said the matter needed to be listed before a bench headed by Justice P. S. Narasimha.
Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for a litigant, said the March 11 order had been passed by a bench comprising Justices Narasimha and R. Mahadevan. He said the miscellaneous application should therefore be heard by the same bench, as the judges are now sitting in different combinations.
The DoPT’s plea arises from the top court’s judgement in the Union of India vs Rohith Nathan case in which the court, on March 11 held, among other things, that the October 14, 2004 clarifying letter could not override the September 8, 1993 office memorandum governing identification of the OBC creamy layer.
The DoPT’s plea arises from the top court’s judgement in the Union of India vs Rohith Nathan case in which the court, on March 11 held that the October 14, 2004 clarifying letter could not override the September 8, 1993 office memorandum governing identification of the OBC creamy layer. The court also held 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.
It said, the status and category of the parent’s post, along with the prescribed income/wealth test, were to be considered in accordance with the 1993 office memorandum.
