Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 20287
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, MR. SYAM KUMAR V.M., JJ
STATE OF KERALA REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GENERAL ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, KERALA – Appellant
Versus
MICHAEL ANTONY K.G AGED 49 YEARS S/O.K.A.GILBERT – Respondent
WA NO.371 OF 2025 | WA NO.373 OF 2025 | WP(C) NO.13913/2024 | WP(C) NO.1727/2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI.SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE, GOVERNMENT PLEADER
For the Respondents: SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN, R1 & R2
The court clarified that salary income must be included in assessing eligibility for Non-Creamy Layer status under State guidelines.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Non-Creamy Layer Guidelines - Clarification of income classification - The learned Single Judge's ruling erroneously excluded salary income in determining the eligibility for Non-Creamy Layer status, contending that only income from other sources should be considered. The court emphasized the necessity to interpret relevant guidelines without misapprehending their intent, which aims to ensure benefits proceed only to genuinely underprivileged individuals. The interpretation must reflect the provision's objective to prevent affluent classes from accessing reservation benefits. (Paras 6, 12, 20, 24)
(B) Reservation Policy - Legal Framework - The court noted that Articles 15(4) and 15(6) of the Constitution empower the State to define the socio-economic status for entitlement to benefits, and it clarified that salary and agricultural income do intersect when determining gross annual income. (Paras 13, 18, 21)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of the appeals and prior judgment regarding non-creamy layer eligibility. (Para 1 , 2 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding income inclusion and implications for eligibility. (Para 6 , 7 , 10 , 15) |
| 3. court discussions on guidelines and intent behind income classifications. (Para 12 , 18 , 20) |
| 4. final conclusions and orders regarding the appeals. (Para 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2026
Syam Kumar V.M., J.
These Writ Appeals are preferred by the State challenging the common judgment dated 25.11.2024 rendered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) Nos.1727 and 13913 of 2024. Appellants herein were respondent Nos.1 to 7 in the said Writ Petitions.
2. Writ Petitions were filed by the respondents challenging rejection of the applications preferred by them seeking issuance of Non-Creamy Layer Certificates. They had in the W.P.(C)s sought to quash the orders rejecting their respective applications for Non Creamy Layer Certificates inter alia contending that while reckoning the gross annual income limit for the purpose of identifying and excluding the creamy layer from the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBCs) for reservation in admission to Professional Degree Courses, income from salary and agricultural land has to be excluded and the income from sources other than salary or agricultural land alone could be taken into consideration.
3. W.P.(C) No.13913 of 2024 was filed by the respondents, who are the members of Latin Catholic Community, challenging Exhibit P4 and Clause 12 of Exhibit P8 dated 14.06.2010.
4. W.P.(C) No.1727 of 2024 was filed by the respondents, who are members of Hindu-Mukaya (Dheevara) Community, challenging Exhibit P6 dated 20.10.2023 and Exhibit P8 dated 20.12.2023 issued by the 6th and 5th respondents respectively in the Writ Petition.
5. The learned Single Judge had vide the common judgment dated 25.11.2024, declared that the respondents are eligible for Non-Creamy Layer Certificate and directed the appellants to issue Non-creamy layer certificates within one month of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The said direction was complied with later, and the State has thereafter filed these Writ Appeals seeking to set aside the said common judgment.
6. Heard Sri.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, learned Government Pleader for the appellants and Smt. Rekha Vasudevan, Advocate for the respondents.
7. It is submitted by the learned Government Pleader that the judgment of the learned Single Judge is the result of a wrongful interpretation of the relevant Government Orders and concerned legal provisions and is hence fit to be set aside. The parents of the 2nd petitioner in both the W.P.(C)s, ie, the 1st petitioner therein, it is submitted, come under the definition of Professional Class mentioned in Category IV, with respect to whom their salary has to be taken into consideration for calculating the gross annual income, and the GO dated 01.01.2015 (produced as Exhibit P1 in W.P.(C) No.1727 of 2024 and Exhibit P9 in W.P.(C) No.13913 of 2024) had been wrongly interpreted, and the rule of exclusion for those who are coming under Category IV group therein had been misunderstood while allowing the Writ Petitions.
8. It is submitted that as regards the applicant for Non-Creamy Layer Certificate in W.P.(C) No.1727 of 2024 is concerned, the father of the applicant works in a private firm as Senior Manager and his annual income for 3 consecutive years is above Rs.10,00,000/-. The applicant's mother is a Class II State Government employee. Only the job income and status of the applicant’s father had been considered, and he is working in a private firm, and his status is not comparable with that of a State/Central Government employee. He is included in category VI while considering the norms of the Non- Creamy Layer category. Pointing to the counter-affidavit filed, it is submitted that the father of the said applicant has two houses which are rented out and they are receiving income from the same. It
