Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
HEMANT GUPTA and AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Ashish Kumar, son of Sri Ramashish Chaudhary - Appellants
Versus
The Chairman Cum Managing Director, State Bank of India and Ors. - Respondents
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1016 of 2014 Arising out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 457 of 2014
Decided On : 28-10-2016
OBC - Appointment Dispute - Schedule to G.I., Deptt. Of Per.& Trg., O.M. No. 36012/22/93-Estt.(SCT), dated 8-9-1993 - The court discussed the relevant acts and sections including Clause-11(i) of the Advertisement, Appendix 'I' of the policy adopted by public sector banks, Circular dated 14th October, 2004, and the Supreme Court judgment reported as Surinder Singh v. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala; (2014) 15 SCC 767. The court interpreted the income/wealth test and the criteria for determining creamy layer status under the OBC category.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant sought appointment under the OBC category but was denied due to belonging to the creamy layer based on the income of the appellant's father.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant's income from salary and agricultural land cannot be clubbed together for determining the overall limit of Rs. 6 lakhs, and the appellant falls within the creamy layer as per the Circular dated 08.09.1993.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellant was entitled to appointment under the OBC category despite belonging to the creamy layer based on the income of the appellant's father.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the income of the appellant's father from salary and agricultural land cannot be clubbed together for determining the overall limit of Rs. 6 lakhs, and the appellant falls within the creamy layer as per the Circular dated 08.09.1993.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, stating that the appellant is not entitled to appointment under the category of OBC.
HEMANT GUPTA, J.
The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 7th April, 2014 whereby the claim of the appellant for appointment under the category of Other Backward Classes (hereinafter referred to as the ‘OBC’) was not accepted.
2. The respondent-State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’) published an advertisement on 30th January, 2013 inviting applications for recruitment of Probationary Officers in the Bank. Clause-11(i) of the Advertisement contemplated a declaration by a candidate seeking reservation under the category of OBC that he/she does not belong to creamy layer as on 23rd February, 2013. Clause- 3 and 11(i) of the Advertisement reads as under:-
“3. Candidates belonging to OBC categorically but coming in the “CREAMY LAYER” are not entitled to OBC reservation and age relaxation. They should indicate their category as ‘GEN’ or ‘GEN (OH)’ or ‘GEN (VH)’ (as applicable).
11(i) A declaration to be submitted in prescribed format by candidates seeking reservation under OBC category that he/she does not belong to the creamy layer as on 23.02.2013.
The OBC certificate containing the ‘Non-Creamy Layer’ clause issued during the period 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 should be submitted by such candidates, if called for interview.”
3. The appellant submitted a certificate dated 13th August, 2012 to the effect that the appellant does not belong to creamy layer, but at the foot of the said certificate, it was mentioned that annual income from salary is Rs. 7,03,000/-.
4. From the Income Tax Return of the father of the appellant, the income of his father of the last three consecutive years was found as under:-
2010-11
Rs. 8,80,376.81
2011-12
Rs. 8,50,94.16
2012-13
Rs. 7,77,030.61
5. It is on the said account, the appellant was not offered appointment against OBC category, as he belongs to creamy layer in view of the policy adopted by the public sector banks dated 08.09.1993. The relevant extracts from the policy reads as under:-
APPENDIX ‘I’
PERSONS/SECTIONS EXCLUDED FROM RESERVATIOIN [Schedule to G.I., Deptt. Of Per.& Trg., O.M. No. 36012/22/93-Estt.(SCT), dated 8-9-1993]
Description of category
To whom rule of exclusion will apply
VI. INCOME/WEALTH TEST
Sons and daughters of-
(a) persons having gross annual income of Rs. 4.5 lakhs or above or possessing wealth above the exemption limit as prescribed in the Wealth Tax Act for a period of three consecutive years.
(b) persons in Categories I, II, III and V A who are not disentitled to the benefit of reservation but have income from other sources of wealth which will bring them within the income/wealth criteria mentioned in (a) above.
Explanation:
(i) Income from salaries or agricultural land shall not be clubbed.
(ii) The income criteria in terms of rupee will be modified taking into account the change in its value over three years. If the situation, however so demands, the interregnum may be less.
Explanation: Whether the expression permanent incapacitation” occurs in this schedule, it shall mean incapacitation which results in putting an officer out of service.
6. The learned Single Bench, on the aforesaid facts, returned a finding that the appellant is not entitled to seek appointment under the category of OBC, as he stands excluded from said category in view of income of his father of more than Rs. 6 lakhs per annum, as enhanced on 16th May 2013.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that income from salary or income from agricultural land cannot be taken into consideration for determining gross annual income of Rs. 6 lakhs as mentioned in Clause-A of the 3rd column of the Circular. It is contended that the entire income of Rs. 7 lakhs is from salary, so the said amount cannot be taken into c
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
