CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A. No. 3954/2025 Reserved on : 15.12.2025 Pronounced on : 18.12.2025 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman Hon’ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member (A)

Basant Singh Son of Balinder Singh Aged 30 Years Residing at B-169, Sector-105 Noida, UP ... Applicant (By Advocate : Mr. Vikram Hegde with Ms. Chinmayi Shrivastava)

Versus

1. Union of India Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel and Training North Block, New Delhi -110001 Represented by its Secretary

2. Rajput Neha Uddhav Singh C/o Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel and Training North Block, New Delhi -110001 ... Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. Jalaj Aggarwal)

ORDER Hon’ble Dr. Anand S, Khati, Member (A) :

In the present Original Application (O.A.) filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is an aspirant of All India Civil Services and appeared in Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2023 as an OBC Non-Creamy Layer (NCL) candidate and submitted all relevant certificates/information to the UPSC. Though he was successful in the examination and attained All India rank of 47, the respondents denied him service allocation without considering the OBC NCL Certificate issued by the competent authority and treated him as falling within the OBC Creamy Layer (CL) category. Feeling aggrieved, he has filed the instant O.A. seeking the following relief(s):

“(a) Direct the Respondent to consider the Applicant as an OBC Non-Creamy Layer Candidate in respect of UPSC Civil Services Examination 2023 and allocate service and cadre as per his rank and eligibility with consequential seniority.

(b) Direct the Respondent to accept the Applicant for training pursuant to allocation of service.

(c) Any other order that this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts of the case.”

2. The sole ground taken to treat the applicant as falling within the OBC (CL) category by the Respondent No.1, i.e. Department of Personnel & Training (DoP&T) is that his father is working in a statutory/autonomous body - Khadi and Village Industries Commission (KVIC) under the Government of India. As per the Respondent No.1, the post of the father of the applicant in KVIC is neither a part of central service, nor is it equivalent to central service. Therefore, instead of applying the usual Group/Grade classification criteria, the salary income of the father was taken into account, which was found exceeding ₹8 lakhs per annum for the last three consecutive years. However, the applicant contended that the very premise of the Respondent No. 1 is wrong insofar as his father is employed with KVIC, which is a statutory body under the Central Government and is, therefore, to be considered as a Government Employee.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant's father was recruited to a Group 'C' post in 1993 and is now in a Group 'B' post. As per the DoP&T’s OM dated 14.10.2004 (2004 OM), the status of the applicant’s father should be evaluated based on Group/Grade classification, not income. Since his father’s post does not fall under Group ‘A’ or directly recruited Group 'B', the status based exclusion under the O.M. is not attracted. Therefore, the applicant should be classified as OBC NCL, and not excluded due to his father’s income.

4. He also submitted that RTI response dated 24.03.2025 from the Lok Sabha Secretariat clarified that Respondent’s reasoning for applying the income test is based on an incorrect interpretation of the OM dated 08.09.1993 (1993 OM). The Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises (MSME) vide letter dated 27.09.2024 confirmed that the applicant’s father joined KVIC as an Assistant Accountant/Executive, a Group ‘C’ post, and is presently serving as Senior Executive, which is a Group ‘B’ post. It is also noted that KVIC is a statutory body under the Central Government governed by pay scales, service rules and group cla