CENTRALADMINISTRATIVETRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI O.A. No. 1990/2024 M.A. No. 989/2025 Reserved on: 15.10.2025 Pronounced on: 05.12.2025 Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)

Hon’ble Dr. Anand S. Khati, Member(A)

Patil Aditya Rajkumar Aged about 30 years S/o Rajkumar Madhavrao Patil R/o 24, Shastri Nagar Bhavsar Chowk, Nanded Maharashtra-431605.

... Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Prakhar Bhatnagar)

Versus

1. Department of Personnel & Training Ministry of Personnel, PG and Pensions Government of India North Block New Delhi-110001.

2. Ministry of Railways Baroda House New Delhi-110003.

... Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. Gyanendra Singh)

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, who is an aspirant of All India Civil Services and appeared in CSE-2022 held by the UPSC, is aggrieved by the order dated 19.04.2024 passed by respondent no. 1, by which he has been declared ineligible for appointment under OBC Non-Creamy Layer (NCL) category pursuant to Civil Services Examination (CSE), 2022; and is seeking a direction to the respondents to consider him as an OBC (NCL) candidate and allocate service accordingly.

2. The reasoning cited in the impugned order for not treating the applicant under the OBC category is the applicant's father's past employment with Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (a Central Public Sector Undertaking) and allegedly holding the post of Junior Telecom Officer (an Executive level post). It has also been incorrectly noted in the impugned order that income test is to be applied to ascertain if the applicant's father falls in the Creamy Layer category and that the gross income from his salary was more than Rs. 8 Lacs for three consecutive financial years, i.e. 2018-2019, 2019-2020 and 2020-

2021.

2.1 In the impugned order, the decision to treat the applicant under the Creamy Layer is being taken citing DoPT Office Memorandum No. 36012/22/93-Estt. (SCT) dated 08.09.1993 and the Department of Public Enterprises' OM No. DPE-GM-/0020/2014-GM-FTS-1740 dated 25.10.2017. The applicant is claimed to have been falling under Category II(C) and VI envisaged in Respondent No. 1 Office Memorandum No. 36012/22/93-Estt. (SCT) dated 08.09.1993.

2.2 It is contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the impugned order has been passed in contravention of the exclusion notification, incorrect reliance on the inexact equivalence notification, ignorance of the equivalence notification, ignorance of the clarification notification, contravention of the CSE Rules 2022, ignorance of the applicant's Caste certificate and basic documentary evidence.

2.3 It is also mentioned that the applicant's father's income from other source in FY 2018-19 was Rs. 369/-, in FY 2019-20 was Rs.0/- and in FY 2020-21 was Rs.27,898/-. Further, the applicant’s father salary has been incorrectly noted as Rs.23,69,138/- in FY 2020-21, which was, in fact, Rs.5,18,318/-; and an amount of Rs.18,50,820/-

was given to him as ex-gratia under BSNL’s VRS Scheme.

2.4 Learned counsel for the applicant, while relying upon the DoPT Office Memorandum No. 36012/22/93-Estt. (SCT) dated 08.09.1993 and the decisions rendered by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 12598/2018 titled as Union of India vs Divyanshu Patel, dated 27.11.2018; and WP(C) No. 16191/2006 titled as The Secretary, M/o Personal, Public Grievances and Pensions vs Tanu Kashyap and Ors., dated 05.10.2007, submitted that the applicant's family does not fall under Creamy Layer category.

2.5 He submitted that the controversy involved in the present O.A. has been comprehensively dealt by this Tribunal in O.A. No. 2554/2023 decided vide Order dated 19.03.2024, which was affirmed by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 14557/2024 titled Union of India & Anr. vs Sarthak Singh vide Judgment dated

21.10.2024.

2.6 He also submitted that the applicant earlier approached this Tribunal by filing