The Supreme Court has maintained its old decision regarding OBC creamy layer. The court said that the salary alone of parents working in PSU or private companies will not determine their eligibility for reservation. The post and its category will also have to be seen.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Friday, November 6, gave an important decision in the case related to reservation of Other Backward Classes (OBC). The court made it clear that the salary of parents working in government undertakings (PSUs) and private companies cannot be the sole basis for keeping their children in the creamy layer. For this, the position of the parents, job category and applicable rules will also have to be considered. The court has upheld its decision of March 11, 2026.
Even if parents' salary is high, it is not necessary to come in the creamy layer.
In a case related to OBC reservation, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the high salary of the parents cannot be the basis for placing a candidate in the creamy layer. Justice PS Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan's bench said this while hearing the petition of the Central Government. The government had asked the court to implement the decision of March 11, 2026 only in the future, but the court did not accept it.
According to the court, if a candidate's parents work in a government company, bank or private sector, then along with their earnings, it is also important to see what post they are working in. We will also have to keep in mind which post is equivalent to that post in the government job. A candidate cannot be excluded from the benefits of OBC non-creamy layer on the basis of salary amount alone.
This decision can especially provide relief to those candidates whose parents work in PSUs, banks or private companies. Many such candidates were earlier unable to get the benefit of non-creamy layer due to the salary of their parents.
What did the central government say regarding old cases?
The central government was worried that if the decision taken in March was implemented on old cases also, questions might be raised on the government appointments already made. The recruitment process has been completed in many departments and the selected candidates are also doing jobs. If such cases are re-investigated, disputes may arise regarding seniority of employees, promotion and allocation of posts.
Citing these problems, the government had requested the Supreme Court that the decision under Article 142 of the Constitution should be limited only to the upcoming recruitments. However, the court did not accept this demand of the government. It was also made clear that the March decision does not mean that re-examination of every recruitment done earlier should be started again. Appointments and selection processes that have been finalized will not normally need to be reopened.
What will be the impact on already working employees?
The Supreme Court has made it clear that there will be no automatic change in the appointments, seniority and promotions of employees completed before this decision. The candidates who had contested the case before the court and the interveners whose claims were part of those proceedings will be given the benefit of reservation as per the rules. If needed, the government can also arrange additional posts for them.
Whereas, for other candidates whose cases are still pending with the court, tribunal or any competent authority, their claims will be examined on the basis of individual facts. The court also made it clear that the relevant selection and appointment processes to be completed after March 11, 2026, will have to follow the creamy layer principles laid down by it.
Relief to the candidates of Civil Services Examination 2025 also
The Supreme Court has also given important instructions regarding UPSC Civil Services Examination 2025. The final result of this examination was released on 6 March 2026, but the allocation of services to the candidates was not completed yet. The central government wanted that the creamy layer for these candidates should be decided on the basis of old rules. The court did not accept this demand. The court said that the process of service allocation is still pending, hence the principles laid down in the March 11 decision will be applicable.
What can change further in the rules of creamy layer?
The government may make new rules regarding OBC creamy layer in the coming days. The Supreme Court has allowed this, but has also said that any new policy should be in accordance with the Constitution and the old decisions of the court. The government will also have to keep in mind the points given in the Office Memorandum of 1993 and the clarification issued in 2004.
A big question is that what posts of people working in government companies, banks and private institutions will be compared with which posts in government jobs. The government can discuss this with the concerned departments and other parties. The court has not given any last date for preparing the new policy. However, the government initially got six months to implement the March 11 decision. Now it has been extended by two more months. This means that the government has got some more time to take necessary steps as per the decision.
Supreme Court's decision regarding National Book Trust also came
The Supreme Court has also given its verdict in another case related to National Book Trust (NBT). A bench of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Augustine George Masih considered NBT to be within the definition of 'State' under Article 12 of the Constitution. The court considered the role of the government in the functioning of NBT as important behind this decision.
The government has a lot of control over how the trust will be run, how appointments will be made in it and how financial decisions will be taken. On this basis, the court has kept NBT within the scope of Article 12.