HULUVADI G.RAMESH, Dr. G.JAYACHANDRAN, JJ.

1. The vexed question of identifying Creamy Layer among the other backward community for reservation in employment is agitated before this Court in these writ petitions.

2. All these three writ petitions are preferred by the Union of India aggrieved by the common judgment passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 12.01.2017.

3. The brief facts of the case in W.P.Nos.6387 and 6388 of 2017 is as follows:

Mr. Rohith Nathan the first respondent herein is the successful applicant in O.A.Nos.1132 and 1133 of 2014 before the Tribunal. His case is that, his father Mr. Rajagopalan is an employee of M/s HCL Technologies Limited. He is designated as Head Retail Practice in grade E5. He applied for Civil Service Examination under Other Backward Classes (in short “OBC”) quota and got himself qualified in the year 2012 and ranked 174. Since he applied under OBC quota, he has furnished a certificate obtained from M/s HCL Technologies Limited to the effect that his father entered grade E5 from 05.01.2004 onwards at the age of 45 years and the said post is comparable to a Group B/Class II post of the Government of India. Later, he was promoted to grade E7 on 01.10.2007 at the age of 48 years, which is comparable to Group A/Class I Officer of the Government of India. M/s HCL Technologies Limited, the employee of his father has also furnished a Certificate to that effect. Based on the Certificate furnished by him, he was allotted to the Indian Foreign Service (IFS) under OBC category. The result was published in the Internet Website of the Department and hence, he went to collect the allotment. Later, he was informed that his name was wrongly inserted in the list and denied the letter of appointment, without assigning reason. Despite the Certificate given by the competent authority namely, Tahsildar about his OBC Non Creamy Layer status, the District Vigilance Committee enquired and reported that he was not to be considered as OBC Non Creamy Layer. Since he was not issued allotment of service of Indian Foreign Service (IFS), he approached the Tribunal by way of an application in O.A.No.810/00464/2014 calling for the records relating to the selected list for the year 2012 and direct the first respondent to issue allotment of post of Indian Foreign Service to him as per ranking in the OBC category and issue order of appointment. The said OA was disposed of with a direction to consider his representation.

4. Pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal passed in the above said O.A., he made a representation to the respondents but, no order was passed by the first respondent within a period of three months as directed by the Tribunal. Hence, a contempt application was filed and thereafter the respondent passed the impugned order dated 10.07.2014 treating him as unreserved category for the Civil Service Examination in the year 2012.

5. The impugned order being passed suppressing vital facts germane for deciding the issue of OBC status, the applicant had sought for a direction in O.A.No.1132 of 2014 to appoint him in the Indian Police Service under unreserved category, so that he may not loose his seniority. Since the next batch of candidate selected in the Civil Service Examination for the year 2013 supposed to join training, his seniority will be lost. In another application O.A.No.1133 of 2014 with almost identical averments, he has challenged Class II-C of the schedule of the Official Memorandum dated 08.09.1993 issued by Department of Personnel and Training (in short “DoPT”). In thus OA, it was contended by the applicant that, as per the Official Memorandum dated 08.09.1993 bearing No.36012/93-Est.(SCT) issued by the DoPT, Government of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, “the salary” and “the agricultural income” of Public Sector Undertaking employees cannot be tak