The creamy layer status for reservation eligibility is determined by parents' income, including pensions, not by a married woman's personal circumstances.

JUDGMENT :

VIBHU BAKHRU, CJ.

1. For the reasons stated in the application―I.A.No.1/2025, the same is allowed. The delay of 213 days in filing W.A.No.1285/2025 is condoned.

2. These appeals arise from a common order dated 29.11.2024 [impugned order] passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24219/2024 (GM-CC) connected with W.P.No.21245/2024 (GM-CC).

3. The writ petitioner (Smt. Shreya H.J) had filed W.P.No.24219/2024 impugning an order dated 26.08.2024 passed by the District Caste and Income Verification Committee [the Committee] – which was arrayed as respondent No.3 in the said writ petition – whereby it was held that the writ petitioner was not eligible for issuance of Sindhutva Certificate under Category-II(A).

4. The writ petitioner had also filed W.P.No.21245/2024, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to the respondents, State of Karnataka and the High Court of Karnataka, to consider the writ petitioner's case for appointment to the post of a Civil Judge through direct recruitment pursuant to the notifications dated 09.03.2023 and 23.02.2024 under Category-II(A).

5. The writ petitioner, essentially, seeks benefit of reservations in appointment to the persons belonging to Category-II(A). The same was denied to the writ petitioner as she was held to be in 'Creamy Layer', owing to the quantum of the income of her parents.

6. The learned Single Judge examined the Government Order dated 30.03.2002, Government Order No.SWD 225 BCA 2000 and the Annexure to the said GO titled as 'New Comprehensive Creamy Layer' and observed that candidates would be ineligible for reservation under Categories- II(A), II(B), III(A) and III(B), if either of their parents/guardians is a Group-A or Group-B officers in government service or holds an equivalent position in a public sector undertaking or is otherwise employed in a private industry/institution drawing a salary not less than that of a Group-B officer and whose gross annual income exceeds Rs.2,00,000/-. The said threshold limit was subsequently revised to Rs. 8,00,000/-

7. It is submitted that the writ petitioner's mother had retired as a District Judge from the Karnataka Judicial Service on attaining the age of superannuation and her father also superannuated from the Government service as an Assistant Conservator of Forests.

8. The learned Single Judge, therefore, held that the writ petitioner could not be held ineligible on the ground that her parents were in government service holding the posts of Group-A and Group-B as they had superannuated from service. The affidavits affirmed by the parents of the writ petitioner were not on record before Respondent No.3 [the Committee] and therefore, the learned Single Judge held that the writ petitioner's application for validation of caste and income certificate required reconsideration. Accordingly, the Committee was directed to reconsider the writ petitioner's application for revalidation of her caste and income certificate in accordance with the Government Order dated 30.03.2002. The Court further observed that for the purpose of validating the income certificate, the pension received by her parents shall not be considered as income.

9. Mr. Udaya Holla, the learned Senior Counsel appears for the writ petitioner in W.A.No.1285/2025 (arrayed as respondent No.1 in W.A.No.364/2025). He assailed the impugned order on a solitary ground that the eligibility of a married woman is required to be considered taking into account the income of her husband and not her parents. He contended that the learned Single Judge erred in directing that the affidavits of the writ petitioner's parents be c