1. OBC certificate denied for admission on ground of father's income exceeding creamy layer threshold. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2000 Supreme(SC) 1578
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S.Anand, CJI., N.Santosh Hegde : Shivaraj V.Patil, JJ.
Siddarth Saini
Versus
State Of Haryana
Case No. : 7631 of 1999
Date of Decision : 9/21/00
Important Points
For determining 'creamy layer' status for OBC reservation, salary income of government employees in specific service categories shall be excluded from income calculations if explicitly provided by government clarification guidelines.
Subject
Constitutional Law - Reservation and OBC Rights
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Constitutional Law - Reservation - Other Backward Classes (OBC) - Creamy Layer - Determination of income - Exclusion of salary income for government servants of specific categories - Where a government clarification specifies that salary income is not to be taken into account for the purpose of determining creamy layer status for service category employees, any order denying an OBC certificate on the basis of such salary income is erroneous and unsustainable. (Paras 3, 4)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, belonging to the reserved category of Other Backward Classes, applied for an OBC certificate for admission to an engineering college. The certificate was denied by the authority on the ground that the annual income of the appellant's father, a Class-II officer with the State Government, exceeded the prescribed limit for three consecutive years. This decision was upheld by the High Court. Subsequently, the State Government issued a clarification stating that salary income is not required to be taken into account for the purpose of determining creamy layer status in respect of service category employees who are not covered under specific excluded descriptions.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the only source of income for the appellant's father was his salary. In light of the government's own clarification that salary income should be excluded for the purpose of determining creamy layer status for such service categories, the order refusing to grant the OBC certificate was clearly erroneous.
Issues: Whether salary income of a Class-II government employee should be considered when determining the income threshold for the 'creamy layer' to decide eligibility for an OBC certificate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if the government's own clarified guidelines exclude salary income for service category employees when calculating the income/wealth threshold for creamy layer status, then the amount of gross salary received by a government employee is irrelevant for the grant of OBC benefits. (Para 4)
Result: Appeal allowed.
Facts of the case:
The appellant, belonging to the reserved category of Other Backward Classes, applied for an OBC certificate for admission to an engineering college. The certificate was denied by the authority on the ground that the annual income of the appellant's father, a Class-II officer with the State Government, exceeded the prescribed limit for three consecutive years. This decision was upheld by the High Court. Subsequently, the State Government issued a clarification stating that salary income is not required to be taken into account for the purpose of determining creamy layer status in respect of service category employees who are not covered under specific excluded descriptions.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the only source of income for the appellant's father was his salary. In light of the government's own clarification that salary income should be excluded for the purpose of determining creamy layer status for such service categories, the order refusing to grant the OBC certificate was clearly erroneous.
Issues: Whether salary income of a Class-II government employee should be considered when determining the income threshold for the 'creamy layer' to decide eligibility for an OBC certificate.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if the government's own clarified guidelines exclude salary income for service category employees when calculating the income/wealth threshold for creamy layer status, then the amount of gross salary received by a government employee is irrelevant for the grant of OBC benefits. (Para 4)
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant argued father's salary should not be counted; respondent upheld denial based on gross income. (Para 1 , 3 )
3. Government clarification excluded salary from income calculation for creamy layer for Class-II officers. (Para 3 , 4 )
4. Father's salary income is irrelevant; only other sources considered for creamy layer exclusion of OBC. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed; OBC certificate directed to be issued within one week; no costs. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 )
6. Is salary income considered for determining creamy layer among OBC government employees?
No, only income from other sources is considered for creamy layer exclusion of Class-II government employees. (Para 3 , 4 )
7. What is the effect of a government clarification on OBC certificate issuance?
A government clarification can retroactively validate the non-inclusion of salary, overriding earlier erroneous refusals. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 )
(1) THE appellant is a resident of Haryana and belongs to the reserved category of Other Backward Classes (OBC), as declared by the State Government. He appeared for the Common Engineering Entrance Test (CEET), 1999-2000, conducted by the Regional Engineering College, Kurukshetra, for admission to various Engineering Colleges in the State of Haryana. He sought admission against the seat reserved for OBC candidate. Father of the appellant, who admittedly is a Class-ll Officer with the State Government, applied to respondent no. 3 - Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, for issuance of an OBC certificate. That certificate was denied to the appellant vide order of the Deputy Commissioner, Yamuna Nagar, dated 24th June, 1999 on the ground that "the income for the last three years of the father of the applicant is more than 3 lakh". The said order of the Deputy Commissioner was put in issue by the appellant through his father by a writ petition in the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court opined that father of the appellant had been rightly included in the creamy layer because his gross annual income was more than Rs. 1,00,000/- for a period of three consecutive years. This appeal, by special leave, calls in question the said order of the High Court, dated 9th July, 1999.
(2) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(3) PURSUANT to the judgment of this Court in Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [JT 1992 (6) SC 273 = 1992 Supp. (3) SCC 217], Haryana Government vide notification, dated 12.10.1993 had set up the Haryana Second Backward Classes Commission. The terms of reference of the Commission were to entertain, examine and recommend, upon requests, for inclusion and complaints of over-inclusion and under-inclusion in the list of Backward Classes. Vide notification, dated 26.5.1994, the Commission was also assigned the function of specifying the basis, applying the relevant and requisite socio-economic criteria to exclude socially advanced persons/sections (creamy layer) from Backward Classes. A perusal of the criteria, referred to above, shows persons falling in certain categories as belonging to creamy layer. In this case, we are not concerned with any other category, except the category of Government Servant Class-II post. Father of the appellant was directly recruited as Assistant Engineer (SDO) on Class-II post, in the Irrigation Department of Haryana. Father of the appellant still continues to be a member of Class-II service only. According to the affidavit filed by father of the appellant, his source of income is only salary and he derives income from no other source. The Government of Haryana issued a clarification order no. 22/36/2000-3G.S.III, dated 9th August, 2000 for issuance of certificate to OBCs in Haryana on 9th August, 2000. In the said order, it has been clarified that income from salary is not required to be taken into account for the purpose of income/wealth tax in respect of service category and while calculating income or wealth tax of Government employee of Backward Classes, who is not covered under Annexure-A description of category nos. I, II (a, b, c, d) and III & IV, he would become entitled for the benefit of reservation under Backward Classes Category, his salary shall not be included but his other sources of income/ wealth, be included for income/wealth tax.
(4) IN the present case, it is the admitted case of the appellant that the only source of income of father of the appellant is his salary. It is also not disputed that father of the appellant is a Class-II Officer and that mother of the appellant is not a Class-II Officer. The amount of gross salary, received by the father of the appellant, for the purpose of grant of benefit to the OBCs is irrelevant. This being the position, which has been clarified by the Government of Haryana itself, by Government Order, dated 9th August, 2000, it is obvious that the appellant should not have been refused the O
