The applicant qualifies for OBC non-creamy layer benefits despite her father's executive position, as per established criteria and previous Tribunal rulings.

ORDER

By Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):

The applicant has preferred the instant OA and in para 8 of the OA has sought the following relief:

“a) Allow the Original Application;

(b) Hold that the applicant belongs to non-creamy layer category of OBC and hence entitled for receiving the OBC reservation benefits;

(c) Direct the Respondents to allocate the applicant a service as per her rank in CSE-2023 with all consequential benefits;

(d) Pass such other and/or further order(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.”

FACTS IN BRIEF:

2. The brief facts as explained and argued by the learned counsel for the applicant are that the applicant, who belongs to OBC non- creamy layer category, appeared in the Civil Services Examination (CSE). While espousing the claim of the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant submits that despite being recommended by the UPSC, applicant has not been allocated any service. She has obtained 682 rank under her category i.e. OBC Non-Creamy Layer, however, her merit has not been respected. The Applicant contends that she preferred a represention dated 09.09.2024 and the same is pending consideration of the respondents. The representation of the applicant has not been responded to by the respondents and they have not detailed any reason for not allocating any service to her. The reason explained in the counter reply filed by the respondents is that the father of the applicant is holding the post of Executive (Operations/Sales), an Executive level post in the Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. (BPCL) and is in receipt of much more than the amount of eight lakhs per annum, which is the capping prescribed in the different OMs of the DOP&T for a candidate to be considered under OBC Non- Creamy Layer. Applicant contends that the respondents have placed reliance on the DoP&T OM dated 06.10.2017, while in the case of the applicant the relevant OM would be the DOP&T OM dated 14.10.2004 (Annexure A-1). Applicant points out, the DOP&T OM dated 14.10.2004 (Annexure A-1) contains specific questions along with answers and the question relevant in the case of the applicant is para 4 (v) and the answer thereto. Applicant submits that the OM dated 14.10.2004 is mutatis mutandis applicable to the PSUs by the subsequent OM dated 25.02.2015 (Annexure-A/9 to rejoinder). Therefore, the case of the applicant would be covered under the OM dated 14.10.2004 read with O.M. dated 25.02.2015. She emphasises that a comprehensive reading of the two OMs would make it clear that the case of the applicant is applicable in the present facts. The relevant portion of the OM dated 25.02.2015 (point 30) is reproduced herein below:-

“Reservation for OBCs

30. DOPTs OM No.36033/5/2004-Estt.(Res) Dated 14.10.2004 Regarding Clarification On Creamy Layer Amongst OBCs.”

The Department of Public Enterprises OM dated 25.10.2017 (Annexure A-9), has been applied by the respondents in the case of the applicant and, therefore she submits the same is not the sole criterion to be relied upon to determine the applicant’s eligibility for OBC non-creamy layer status.

3. The applicant draws strength from the decision of a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 2554/2023 decided on 19.03.2024 and submits that Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal has conclusively decided the issue at stake relying upon another decision of the Tribunal in OA No. 579/2018 decided on 25.07.2018 and upheld by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi. He states that the applicant therein, whose father was directly appointed on a Group ‘A’ post at the age of 43 years, was belonging to OBC Non-Creamy Layer. She states that for reasons of parity, the applicant is entitled to get benefits in OBC category and the respondents be directed to allocate service to the applicant as per her rank.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant does not dispute that at the relevant date when the applicant applied for the examinati