Government Caught in Legal Crossfire Between Supreme Court and CAT Over OBC Creamy Layer Dispute
_269016707.jpg)
The Central Government finds itself caught in a high-stakes legal tangle involving the Supreme Court and the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) regarding the contentious issue of determining the "creamy layer" for Other Backward Classes (OBC) reservation in government jobs and civil services. The administration has been scrambling to reconcile contradictory positions taken before judicial and quasi-judicial bodies following the landmark Rohit Nathan judgment delivered on March 11, which fundamentally reshaped how income calculations are viewed for candidates from public sector undertaking (PSU) backgrounds.
The Impact of the Rohit Nathan Verdict on OBC Candidates
The entire controversy traces back to the Supreme Court's decision in the Rohit Nathan case, which clarified that salaries and agricultural income should not be factored into the total income calculations for determining OBC creamy layer status—a principle originally outlined in 1993 rules. However, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) had previously been including salary income for children of PSU employees, pushing many candidates into the creamy layer and depriving them of civil service appointments over the last decade. This judicial clarification opened new doors and brought renewed hope to numerous aspirants who had successfully cleared competitive examinations but faced administrative hurdles.
Conflicting Stances Before CAT and the Supreme Court
The legal pressure mounted significantly when an OBC candidate named Basant Singh approached the CAT seeking relief similar to the Rohit Nathan ruling. During a hearing on August 19, government representatives assured the tribunal that the administration would implement the Supreme Court's decision. However, just days later on August 25, the central government filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging and seeking clarification on that very same verdict. To untangle this public contradiction, the government recently filed a new affidavit in the CAT, requesting a modification of the August 19 order to reflect that final implementation remains contingent upon the Supreme Court's ultimate review, thereby shielding the administration from conflicting legal postures.
_1727613497_351x234.jpg)
_2146627459_351x234.jpg)
_1720321890_351x234.jpg)
_1630414810_351x234.jpg)
_1633284696_351x234.jpg)
