The court clarified that its March 11 judgment would apply to the parties before it and that concluded selections, appointments, seniority and promotions would not be reopened.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday refused to revisit its March 11 verdict holding that the salary or income of a parent employed in a public sector undertaking (PSU) or the private sector cannot, by itself, be the determining criterion for excluding candidates from the Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservation benefits under the creamy layer rules.
A two-judge bench comprising Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan rejected the Centre's plea to make the judgment applicable only prospectively, observing that there was "no convincing or reasonable justification" for deferring its implementation.
The court clarified that its March 11 judgment would apply to the parties before it and that concluded selections, appointments, seniority and promotions would not be reopened.
"The judgment dated March 11, 2026 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. 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,” the apex court said.
The bench said claims by similarly placed persons whose cases were pending before courts, tribunals or other competent authorities could be considered independently on their merits.
"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," the court said.
It clarified that the interpretation of the 1993 Office Memorandum and the 2004 letter laid down in its earlier judgment could be considered while adjudicating such claims in accordance with law.
The Supreme Court had given the Centre six months to implement its March 11 judgment. On Friday, it extended the implementation period by another two months.
The court said the government remained free to formulate its policy on reservation and creamy layer criteria in accordance with the Constitution and the principles laid down in the judgment.
"This court is not inclined to prescribe any timeline for establishing equivalence between posts or consulting stakeholders in the formulation of the creamy layer policy, as these matters fall within the domain of the executive and the legislature," the bench said.
In its March 11 verdict in Union of India vs Rohith Nathan, the Supreme Court had held that the salary or income of a parent employed in a PSU or the private sector could not alone determine whether a candidate belonged to the OBC creamy layer.
It ruled that the status and category of the parent's post, along with the prescribed income or wealth test, must be considered in accordance with the 1993 Office Memorandum.
The Centre had sought prospective application of the judgment, arguing that its implementation could unsettle seniority, cadre allocation and appointments of candidates who were not parties to the litigation.
It invoked Article 142 of the Constitution, contending that applying the verdict to earlier and ongoing recruitment processes could lead to administrative difficulties and adversely affect employees and appointees.
The Centre had requested a two-year deferment to address competing rights, resolve administrative issues and undertake an exercise to establish equivalence between posts.
However, the Supreme Court declined to defer the judgment, while protecting concluded appointments and allowing pending claims to be adjudicated independently.
