Union of India and Others vs Rohith Nathan and Another, Etc.

Held: No infirmity in the impugned judgments – Determination of creamy layer status solely on the basis of income brackets, without reference to the categories of posts and status parameters enunciated in the 1993 OM is unsustainable in law – Overemphasis on the 2004 clarificatory letter to the extent of making income alone determinative without regard to parental status or category of service would defeat the structural framework of exclusion envisaged under the 1993 OM – Under the 1993 OM, salary income and agricultural income are consciously kept outside the common pool while determining exclusion under the Income/Wealth Test – A mere government letter cannot have the effect of overriding, overruling or superseding any proceeding in the nature of an executive instruction or an Office Memorandum issued in exercise of executive power u/Art.162 – Therefore, the clarificatory letter must be construed strictly as one explaining or supplementing the foundational guidelines laid down in the 1993 OM, which was issued after due deliberation and following the requisite procedure and not as altering its substantive framework – Salary income cannot be mechanically aggregated in a manner that defeats the constitutional objective articulated in Indra Sawhney – A comprehensive reading of the 1993 OM along with the 2004 clarificatory letter shows that income from salaries alone cannot be the sole criterion to decide whether a candidate falls within the creamy layer – The status as well as the category of post to which a candidate’s parent or parents belong is essential – Mere determination of the status of a candidate as to whether he/she falls within the creamy layer or the non-creamy layer of the OBCs cannot be decided solely on the basis of the income – Any attempt to read paragraph 9 of the 2004 Letter in isolation, so as to dilute or override the substantive scheme of the 1993 OM would be legally untenable – Appellants to consider the claims of the respondent candidates and intervenors in accordance with the principles laid down in the present judgment, and to implement the same within six months from the date of this judgment. [Paras 21.15, 21.17, 26, 30, 31, 44] Reservation – OBC reservation – Creamy layer status – Whether there can be hostile discrimination between employees of the Government and those working in Public or Private Sector Undertakings, when both occupy posts of the same grade or class:

Held: Treating similarly placed employees of private entities and PSUs differently from Government employees and their wards, while deciding their entitlement to reservation, would amount to hostile discrimination, as rightly held by the High Court – Treating the children of those employed in PSUs or private employment, etc., as being excluded from the benefit of reservation only on the basis of their income derived from salaries, and without reference to their posts (whether Group A or B, or Group C or D) would certainly lead to hostile discrimination between parties who are similarly placed and would amount to equals being treated unequally, thereby attracting the rigour of the equality doctrine under Articles 14, 15 and 16, of which reservation is a facet – Art.16(4) is a structural reflection and a conceptualized representation of the principle of substantive equality embodied and envisaged u/Art.16(1) – Therefore, any interpretation of the 1993 OM or the 2004 Letter that results in unequal treatment of similarly placed OBC candidates would not only be legally erroneous but constitutionally impermissible. [Paras 34, 37, 40]

Parent policy – Clarificatory instruction:

Held: A clarificatory instruction cannot introduce a substantive condition that does not exist in the parent policy – If it travels beyond explanation and alters rights or liabilities, it ceases to be clarificatory and assumes the character of an amendment. [Para 24]

Reservation – Constitutional and statutory background of reservation in India – Reservation framework for Other Backward Classes (OBCs)/Socially and Educationally Backward Classes – Examined. [Paras 21.2-21.17] Reservation – OBC reservation – Creamy layer status – “equivalence of posts”, a matter of policy:

Held: The question of “equivalence of posts” as contemplated both in the 1993 OM and in the subsequent 2004 Letter, is fundamentally a matter of policy – Such equivalence must be determined by the Government on the basis of a detailed analysis of data by experts in the field – Until such equivalence is formally evaluated and notified by the Government, the entitlement of candidates whose parent(s) work in organisations other than in Class I or II of the Central or State Civil Services, shall be decided by the Income/Wealth Test. [Para 23]