UNION OF INDIA vs ROHIT NATHAN - 2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 422

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 422

REPORTABLE
2026 INSC 230 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2827 – 2829 of 2018 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS ROHITH NATHAN AND ANOTHER, ETC. … RESPONDENT(S)
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3130 – 3141 of 2024 UNION OF INDIA … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS KETAN AND OTHERS, ETC. … RESPONDENT(S)
WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026 [Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 17651 of 2022 UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER … APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS Signature Not Verified SAPNA BISHT Date: 2026.03.11 Reason:
DR. IBSON SHAH. I. AND ANOTHER … RESPONDENT(S)

Judgement Key Points

The judgment addresses the legal and constitutional validity of the criteria used to determine the creamy layer status within the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category, specifically focusing on the exclusion of salary income from the income/wealth test (!) (!) . It examines whether executive instructions, such as the Office Memorandum of 1993 and the clarificatory letter of 2004, properly implement the principles of social and economic backwardness, emphasizing that the exclusion of salary and agricultural income from the income/wealth test is a deliberate policy choice rooted in the constitutional mandate to identify genuinely backward individuals (!) (!) .

The Court considers whether subsequent executive clarifications, particularly the 2004 Letter, can override or alter the original statutory framework laid down in the 1993 OM. It concludes that such clarifications are meant to be explanatory and cannot substitute or modify the core policy of status-based exclusion, which is embedded in the original memorandum (!) (!) . The judgment emphasizes that income from salary alone cannot be the sole basis for exclusion from the creamy layer, and that the primary focus must be on the social status and position of the parents, with income serving only as a supplementary criterion (!) (!) .

Furthermore, the Court discusses the importance of non-discrimination between employees of the government and those in public or private sector undertakings, highlighting that similarly placed individuals should not be treated differently based solely on their employment in PSUs or private organizations, especially when their posts are equivalent (!) (!) . It underscores that any classification must have a rational basis and must not result in hostile discrimination, as the principles of equality and fairness demand rational and non-arbitrary treatment of similarly situated persons (!) (!) .

The Court affirms that the exclusion of the creamy layer is a constitutional requirement aimed at ensuring that reservation benefits reach the truly socially and educationally backward sections. It notes that the policy recognizes social status as the primary criterion, with economic factors like income being relevant only in the absence of clear post equivalence (!) (!) . The judgment also clarifies that the determination of post equivalence and the issuance of certificates are functions of the competent authorities, and executive overreach or arbitrary alterations in procedures are impermissible (!) (!) .

In conclusion, the Court dismisses the appeals and affirms that the original principles of the 1993 OM, which exclude salary income from the income/wealth test, remain valid and binding. It emphasizes that any executive instructions or clarifications cannot dilute or override the statutory framework, and that classification for reservation purposes must be based on rational, social, and economic criteria without discrimination between similarly placed individuals. The Court directs the authorities to consider the claims of candidates in accordance with these principles within a specified timeframe (!) .

REPORTABLE

2026 INSC 230 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2827 – 2829 of 2018 UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS ROHITH NATHAN AND ANOTHER, ETC. … RESPONDENT(S)

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3130 – 3141 of 2024 UNION OF INDIA … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS KETAN AND OTHERS, ETC. … RESPONDENT(S)

WITH CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). OF 2026 [Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 17651 of 2022 UNION OF INDIA & ANOTHER … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS Signature Not Verified SAPNA BISHT Date: 2026.03.11 Reason:

DR. IBSON SHAH. I. AND ANOTHER … RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

R. MAHADEVAN, J.

Leave granted in SLP (C) No. 17651 of 2022.

2. This judgment deals with three matters arising out of separate orders passed by different High Courts. Since the questions of law involved in all the cases are substantially identical and common, they were heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. The facts giving rise to the respective appeals are set out below.

C.A. No(s). 2827 – 2829 of 2018 [Union of India & Ors. v. Rohith Nathan and Anr. Etc.]

4. The present Civil Appeals have been filed against the common judgment dated 31.08.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in W.P. Nos. 6387, 6388 and 6389 of 2017, whereby the High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants and affirmed the common order dated 12.01.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, For short, “CAT”, Chennai Bench in O.A. Nos. 1133, 1132 and 1375 of 2014.

4.1. Respondent No. 1 in CA. Nos. 2827 and 2828 of 2018, Rohith Nathan, secured All India Rank 174 in the Civil Services Examination, 2012 under the OBC category. His father was employed in a private organisation namely M/s.

HCL Technologies Ltd., and was drawing a salary exceeding the prescribed creamy layer limit under the extant guidelines. On that basis, he was treated as falling within the creamy layer. Though he was recommended by the UPSC as a General Merit candidate and allocated to the Indian Police Service against an unreserved vacancy, Respondent No. 1 sought benefit of OBC reservation and allocation to the Indian Foreign Service against the vacancy reserved for OBC candidates by treating him as OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) candidate. He accordingly filed O.A. No. 1132 of 2014 before the CAT, Chennai seeking a direction for allotment to the Indian Foreign Service as per his OBC rank in the Civil Services Examination, 2012. He also filed O.A. No. 1133 of 2014 seeking to quash the portion relating to Category II(C) in the Schedule to the Office Memorandum dated 08.09.1993 (O.M. No. 36012/22/93-Estt (SCT)).

4.2. Respondent No. 1 in C.A. No. 2829 of 2018, G. Babu, appeared in the Civil Services Examination, 2013 under the OBC category and secured Rank 629. His father was employed in a Public Sector Undertaking namely Neyveli Lignite Corporation, as a Senior Executive Engineer. As his father’s salary income exceeded the prescribed limit, he was also treated as falling within the creamy layer under the applicable guidelines. To claim the benefit of OBC reservation for allocation to a service against a vacancy reserved for OBC candidates, Respondent No. 1 filed O.A. No. 1375 of 2014 before the CAT, Chennai Bench seeking reallocation to the Indian Police Service or any other service as per his OBC rank.

4.3. The CAT, having heard the parties, held that under the Office Memorandum dated 08.09.1993, income from salary and agricultural income stood excluded from the Income / Wealth Test for determination of creamy layer status. It further held that paragraph 9 of the clarificatory letter dated 14.10.2004, insofar as it directed inclusion of salary income of PSU and private sector employees under Category II(C), resulted in hostile discrimination between the wards of Government servants and those of PSU/private sector employees. By its common order dated 12.01.2017, the CAT allowed all three Original Applications and directed as follows:

"We direct the DoPT to wi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document