Back
2014 Supreme(Pat) 355
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.
Ashish Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
The Chairman –cum-Managing Director, State Bank of India, Mumbai. - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.457 of 2014
Decided on : 7-4-2014
Advocate Appeared
For the Petitioner/s:Mr. Durgesh Nandan
For the Respondent/s: Mr. Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the income/wealth test to determine the 'creamy layer' status for the purpose of claiming reservation in service available to Other Backward Classes.
Headnote:
Reservation - Other Backward Classes - G.I. Department of Personnel and Training, OM NO. 36012/22/93-Estt. (SCT) - Summary of Acts and Sections: G.I. Department of Personnel and Training, OM NO. 36012/22/93-Estt. (SCT) - The court discussed the criteria for exclusion from the benefit of reservation under the OBC category, specifically focusing on the income/wealth test and the application of the creamy layer status. The court emphasized the evaluation of posts in public sector undertakings and the application of the income/wealth test to determine the creamy layer status. The court rejected the argument that income from salary should not be considered for determining the creamy layer status, emphasizing that income from salary will determine the creamy layer status of a person. The court also highlighted the absence of a decision regarding the equivalence of posts, stating that the court cannot presume equivalence of posts of employees of the bank vis-à-vis Central Government/State Government employees.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, son of an officer of a nationalized bank, applied for reservation in service available to Other Backward Classes. The bank refused to extend the benefit of reservation to the petitioner, treating him as falling under the 'creamy layer' due to his father's annual income exceeding the specified limit for three consecutive years.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the bank rightly refused to extend the benefit of reservation to the petitioner for the purpose of his appointment as a Probationary Officer in the Bank under OBC category and has been rightly treated to be falling under 'creamy layer'.
Issues: The main issue revolved around the determination of the petitioner's 'creamy layer' status for the purpose of claiming reservation in service available to Other Backward Classes.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the application of the income/wealth test to determine the creamy layer status, rejected the argument that income from salary should not be considered for determining the creamy layer status, and highlighted the absence of a decision regarding the equivalence of posts.
Final Decision: The court upheld the bank's decision to refuse the benefit of reservation to the petitioner, stating that he has been rightly treated to be falling under 'creamy layer'.
1. Whether son of an officer of a nationalized bank, having annual income more than 6 lacs per annum for three consecutive years will fall in “creamy layer” for the purpose of determining his claim for reservation in service available to Other Backward Classes, is precisely the question involved in the present writ application.
2. Facts are not at all in dispute. The State Bank of India came up with an advertisement No. CRPD/P.O./2012-13/04 on 23.01.2013 inviting online applications between 30.01.2013 to 23.02.2013 for recruitment of Probationary Officers in the Bank against 1500 vacancies under different categories. Clause 3 of the advertisement provided that candidates belonging to OBC category but coming in the “creamy layer”, are not entitled to OBC reservation and age relaxation. The petitioner submitted his application online claiming OBC status. The petitioner?s candidature was, on the basis of his application considered as OBC (non-creamy). The petitioner accordingly appeared in the written examination and was declared successful. He thereafter, participated in group discussion and interview test and his name was displayed on the Bank?s website as selected candidate. The result was published in Employment News also.
3. The petitioner was thereafter, asked to call on the Assistant General Manager (HR), local Head Office, Mumbai for the purpose of medical examination / verification of documents by 27.08.2013. It was indicated in the said letter dated 10.08.2013 that if it was not convenient for him to complete the process of medical examination / verification of credentials at the said address, the petitioner could complete the same at the administrative office / LHO (Local Head Office) convenient to him. In response to the said letter dated 10.08.2013, the petitioner requested the Assistant General Manager (HR), State Bank of India, local Head Office, Patna to get his medical examination and verification of certificates done at Patna Local Head Office. Accordingly, he was asked to appear before the Assistant General Manager (HR), State Bank of India, local Head Office, Patna for medical examination and verification of certificates on 22.08.2013. The petitioner in pursuance thereof appeared. Thereafter, whereas other candidates were given appointment letters, no appointment letter was issued to him by the cut off date fixed by the Bank for that purpose i.e. 16.09.2013. The petitioner made an online application to AGM (HR), SBI, local Head Office, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E) Mumbai making enquiry as regards issuance of appointment letters in his favour, in response to which the petitioner received a communication from the Assistant General Manger, State Bank of India, Mumbai that he was not eligible for selection for Probationary Officer post under the OBC category.
4. This is to be noted that in order to claim the benefit of reservation under OBC category, the petitioner had submitted a certificate issued by the Circle Officer, Sadar Darbhanga to the effect that the petitioner did not come within “creamy layer”. However, in the said certificate, it was mentioned at the bottom that annual income from salary was rupees seven lakh three thousand, which fact is not in dispute.
5. The petitioner?s case is precisely based on the claim that income from salary is not required to be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether he would fall in creamy layer or not. The petitioner?s stand in this regard can be quoted from paragraph No. 23 of the writ application which reads thus:- “That as per provision contained in G.1 Deptt. of per and Trg. No. 36012/22/93 Estt. (SCT) dated 8 Sept. 1993, the salary of the petitioner is exempted from the ceiling of the income tax (sic) the purpose of appointment under OBC.” 6. Before I deal with the conditions applicable for exclusion of a candidate belonging to Other Backward Class on the ground of falling within creamy layer, I consider it appropriate to refe
