The Union Authorities has moved the Supreme Courtroom looking for clarification relating to the implementation of its March 11 judgment holding that the creamy layer standing of an Different Backward Class (OBC) candidate can’t be decided solely on the premise of the dad and mom’ wage earnings, and that the class of posts held by them have additionally to be thought of.
A bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan issued discover on the Centre’s clarification utility and stored the matter for listening to on 17th September, 2026.
The Centre has raised issues concerning the penalties of making use of the judgment retrospectively. It has acknowledged that such an interpretation may have an effect on recruitments and admissions already undertaken by the Central Authorities, 18 States and Union Territories,
“Retrospective or belated utility of a modified eligibility criterion might unsettle appointments and admissions made underneath the foundations and certificates prevailing on the related time and should create uncertainty relating to OBC-NCL standing, seniority, service circumstances and profession development. It could additionally have an effect on admissions to Central and State instructional establishments, universities {and professional} establishments. The Applicant subsequently respectfully submits that the temporal operation of the Judgment requires clarification in order to keep away from unsettling accomplished choices, appointments and admissions and the consequential rights arising therefrom”, the plea states.
The Centre has sought two years to determine equivalence of posts in different organisations with authorities posts after consultations with the involved stakeholders and to formulate a uniform mechanism for figuring out OBC creamy-layer standing the place equivalence has not been established.
The Centre has additionally sought permission to finalise service allocation for 958 candidates advisable by the Union Public Service Fee (UPSC) within the Civil Providers Examination (CSE) 2025, pending a choice on the clarification utility.
By the March 11 judgment, the Supreme Courtroom held that wage earnings alone can not decide whether or not a candidate belongs to the OBC creamy layer. It mentioned the standing and class of the submit held by the candidate’s guardian or dad and mom are additionally important elements. The dispute involved the interpretation of the Workplace Memorandum dated August 8, 1993 and a clarificatory letter dated October 14, 2004.
The 1993 OM doesn’t make a guardian’s wage the premise for figuring out creamy-layer standing. Relying on the relevant class, the guardian’s submit is related. The place the Revenue/Wealth Check applies, wage and agricultural earnings are excluded from the earnings calculation.
The 2004 clarification, nonetheless, offered for consideration of wage earnings of oldsters in instances the place equivalence between posts in organisations reminiscent of PSUs, banks, universities and personal entities with authorities posts had not been decided.
The Supreme Courtroom held that the 2004 clarification couldn’t introduce a substantive situation that was absent from the 1993 coverage. It additionally held that treating youngsters of PSU or private-sector workers in another way from equally positioned authorities workers, by treating their wage earnings as a foundation for exclusion, may quantity to hostile discrimination and violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Structure.
In its current clarification utility, the Union Authorities has mentioned that it’s not looking for a evaluation of the March 11 judgment. It has as an alternative sought clarification relating to the temporal operation of the judgment and the way by which its instructions are to be applied.
The Authorities has mentioned that between 2016 and 2025, greater than 5.69 lakh reserved vacancies, together with 3.70 lakh OBC vacancies, have been stuffed in Ministries and Departments of the Central Authorities and their hooked up and subordinate places of work. It has mentioned these recruitments have been made on the premise of the August 8, 1993 Workplace Memorandum and subsequent directions and pointers.
In keeping with the Centre’s plea, retrospective implementation may require reconsideration of service allocations made in Civil Providers Examinations since 2012. It may additionally lead to reallocation of companies and cadres to candidates who’ve already been appointed and will have an effect on seniority and promotions of officers at present in service.
The Centre has argued that retrospective implementation may additionally have an effect on ongoing examinations and recruitment processes, and result in elevated litigation from candidates who have been beforehand denied OBC-NCL advantages or further makes an attempt.
The Authorities has referred to recruitments carried out via varied examination our bodies and departments, together with the Railways, banks, Division of Posts and paramilitary organisations. It has mentioned comparable points may come up in recruitments carried out by 18 States and Union Territories that observe the 1993 Workplace Memorandum.
The Authorities has additionally raised issues relating to candidates who might develop into eligible for technical companies years after the related examination. It has mentioned some candidates might face difficulties in satisfying the prescribed bodily and medical requirements because of the passage of time.
The applying additionally states that lakhs of admissions have been made in larger instructional establishments since 2012 on the premise of the OBC creamy-layer standards underneath the 1993 Workplace Memorandum. It has expressed concern that retrospective modifications may have an effect on such admissions, significantly the place establishments would not have provisions for supernumerary seats.
It has additionally contended that retrospective implementation would disrupt authorities functioning and have an effect on individuals who weren’t events to the unique litigation with out giving them a chance to have their particular person circumstances thought of.
The Centre has subsequently sought a clarification that the March 11 judgment shouldn’t retrospectively reopen accomplished choices, appointments, service or cadre allocations, seniority positions or admissions made underneath the foundations and eligibility circumstances relevant on the related time. It has additionally sought clarification relating to candidates taking part in examinations or recruitment processes that have been already underway on March 11, 2026.
Individually, the Centre has filed an interim utility looking for permission to allocate companies to 958 candidates advisable by the UPSC in CSE-2025 in accordance with the present August 8, 1993 Workplace Memorandum, pending adjudication of the clarification utility.
The Authorities has mentioned that any additional delay in service allocation would defer the Basis Course and the annual coaching and induction cycle of the 958 candidates. It has submitted that such prejudice couldn’t be undone if the clarification utility is finally determined in its favour.
Case no. – Diary No. 51879 and 51897 of 2026
Case Title – Union of India v. Rohith Nathan and Anr.
