New Delhi: SC To Hear Centre’s OBC Creamy Layer Plea
"We will have to set up a special bench": The CJI
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court will hear on September 1 the Centre’s plea seeking clarification on the applicability of its March 11 judgment on OBC creamy layer criteria to candidates of the Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2025.
A special bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan, which delivered the March 11 judgment, will assemble at 3.30 pm to hear the Centre’s plea.
On Tuesday, a three-judge bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V. Mohana agreed to consider constituting a special bench to hear the plea.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, told the CJI-led bench that the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) had filed a miscellaneous application in a disposed-of matter seeking urgent directions and that it had to be listed before a bench headed by Justice Narasimha.
Senior advocate Sanjay Hegde, appearing for a litigant, said the March 11 order had been passed by a bench comprising Justice Narasimha and Justice Mahadevan and that the miscellaneous application had to be heard by the same bench as the judges now sit in different combinations.
"We will have to set up a special bench," the CJI said, adding that he will speak with the judges and set up the bench.
The DoPT has sought directions allowing the government to proceed with service allocation of the 958 candidates recommended by the Union Public Service Commission for CSE 2025 on the basis of the OBC creamy-layer determination applied before the March 11 verdict.
The application arises from the Supreme Court’s March 11 judgment in Union of India vs Rohith Nathan, in which it 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 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 held that the status and category of the parent’s post, along with the prescribed income and wealth test, were to be considered in accordance with the 1993 office memorandum.
