Sons and daughters of individuals with incomes exceeding specified thresholds, including salaries, are ineligible for reservation benefits under creamy layer classification.

JUDGMENT :

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

1. The appellants have filed the present intra-court appeal impugning an order dated 28.10.2024 [impugned order] passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.25063/2024 (GM-CC).

2. The respondent had filed the said petition impugning an order dated 06.03.2024 passed by appellant No.2 – District Caste and Income Verification Committee [the Committee] – rejecting the respondent's claim for reservation under 'Kuruba Caste' as void. The Committee had concluded that the respondent falls under 'creamy layer' and therefore, is not entitled to claim reservation under Category-II(A) of the Government Order classifying the backward classes.

3. The petition preferred by the respondent was allowed by the learned Single Judge and the order dated 06.03.2024 passed by the Committee was set aside. Additionally, the learned Single Judge directed appellant No.2, to issue a caste validity certificate certifying that the respondent as eligible for reservation as applicable to Category-II(A) of Kuruba caste within a period of two weeks from the date of the said order.

Prefatory facts

4. The respondent belongs to Kuruba caste, which falls under Category-II(A) of the Government Order, classifying the backward classes.

5. The respondent had applied for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) with the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited [KPTCL] and was selected for the said post under the reserved Category-II(A). The selecting authority required a caste certificate for substantiating the respondent's claim for reservation.

6. On 20.02.2024, the respondent applied for Sindhuthva Certificate to the Committee. Pursuant to the said application, the Committee requested the concerned Tahsildar (Tahsildar, Annigere Taluk,) to examine the caste and income certificate of the respondent and to submit a verification report. The said Tahsildar submitted a report dated 18.04.2019, confirming that the respondent belongs to Kuruba caste and the family's annual income is Rs.19,48,128/-. The concerned Tahsildar reported that the parents of the respondent were in government service. The annual income of the respondent's father was Rs.7,76,112/- and the annual income of the mother was Rs.6,74,356/-. Thus, the total income of the parents were Rs.14,50,468/-. The said amount was in excess of Rs.8,00,000/-, which was fixed as the annual income limit for backward classes in terms of the Government Order dated 14.09.2018., Government Order No.OBC 304 BCA 2017 The respondent does not dispute that his annual income mentioned in the certificate issued by the Tahsildar, as Rs.6,74,916/-, is correct. He contends that while considering the income of the family for the purpose of reservation, income from salary and agriculture was required to be excluded.

7. The respondent also referred to the order dated 24.08.2021 passed by the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.60/2019, captioned as 'Pichra Warg Kalyan Mahasabha Haryana (Regd.) and another v. The State of Haryana and another' (2021) 20 SCC 384 , in support of his contention that the 'Creamy Layer' cannot be determined solely on the basis of the economic criteria.

8. The Committee did not accept the contention as advanced and rejected the Sindhutva Certificate. The Committee found that the respondent was required to be excluded from the benefit of reservation on account of falling in the creamy layer.

9. The respondent appealed the said order dated 06.03.2024 before appellant No.1 (Appellate Authority/Caste/I