SC says OBC creamy layer ruling will apply to CSE 2025 service allocation

The Supreme Court clarified that its March 11 OBC creamy layer ruling would apply to pending cases and CSE 2025 service allocation but not reopen completed appointments

The Supreme Court (SC) on Friday clarified that its March 11 judgment on determining the creamy layer status of Other Backward Class (OBC) candidates would not reopen completed recruitment processes, appointments or settled seniority positions.

 

The ruling, however, will apply to pending cases and the allocation of services to candidates selected through the Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2025.

 

A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice R Mahadevan passed the order while disposing of the Centre’s application seeking clarity on the judgment's implementation.

 

The court said candidates seeking similar benefits, whose cases were pending before courts, tribunals or other competent authorities, would have their claims examined on their individual merits.

 

 

The authorities may consider the interpretation of the 1993 Office Memorandum (OM) and the 2004 clarification laid down in the judgment.

 

It further clarified that selections and appointments completed before March 11 would not be reopened merely based on the ruling. The government, however, must follow the revised interpretation for subsequent selections and appointments involving OBC reservation.

 

The Bench specifically directed that the ruling apply to service allocation for OBC candidates selected through CSE 2025. Although the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) declared the results on March 6, service allocation was still pending. The court said there was no reasonable justification for deferring the implementation of its judgment.

 

The Centre had sought permission to allocate services to 958 recommended candidates under the existing rules, arguing that further delays would disrupt their Foundation Course and training schedules.

 

The government also flagged the wider implications of retrospective implementation, stating that more than 5,69,000 reserved vacancies, including 3,70,000 OBC vacancies, had been filled in Central government departments between 2016 and 2025. It warned that reconsideration could affect service allocations, seniority, promotions and admissions to educational institutions.

 

The March 11 judgment held that parental salary alone could not determine an OBC candidate’s creamy layer status. The nature and category of the posts held by the parents must also be considered.

 

The dispute concerned the interpretation of the Office Memorandum issued on August 8, 1993, and a clarification issued on October 14, 2004. The latter allowed parental salary to be considered where equivalence between posts in public sector undertakings, banks, universities and private organisations and government posts had not been established.

 

The Supreme Court held that the 2004 clarification could not introduce an additional eligibility condition absent from the original policy. It also said differential treatment of children of private and public sector employees vis-à-vis similarly placed government employees could violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.

 

The Bench said the government was free to formulate its reservation policy in accordance with constitutional principles but declined to prescribe a timeline for determining equivalence between posts.