Only Parents' Income Relevant To Determine Creamy Layer, Self Or Income Of Spouse Who Is Not Class-I Officer Irrelevant: MP High Court

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has said that to determine the status of the creamy layer, the self-income of the candidate or the income of the husband (below the rank of a class I officer) is not considered.

Thus, in such circumstances, only the parents' income is considered the court said. 

The bench of Justice Ashish Shroti observed; 

"while determining the status of creamy layer of a candidate, the income of his parents alone is required to be seen. The income of his husband (who is not Class-I Officer) and/or his own income is not relevant for the said purpose".

The petitioner, a MPPSC aspirant, approached the court to challenge the appointment of the private respondent 3 to the post of Assistant Professor (Law). The petitioner also prayed for directions to appoint her to the post reserved for the OBC (woman) category. 

The selection list was released, and respondent no 3 was placed at serial no 34 while the petitioner was at serial no 35. The respondent no 3 was thus given an appointment through the aforementioned impugned order. 

The counsel for the petitioner argued that respondent no 3 belonged to the OBC category but was part of the creamy layer as her husband was appointed as Civil Judge Class I and she herself was earning ₹30,000 as Guest Faculty. Therefore, their family income exceeds ₹12lakh per annum. 

The counsel for the petitioner also argued that respondent no 3 had wrongly claimed the benefit of the OBC category. 

The counsel for respondent no 3 argued that for the determination of creamy layer status, only the income of parents is assessed. Further, it was argued that the candidate's own income or that of her husband is irrelevant to the same. 

The bench, relying on the case of Indra Sawhney v Union of India (1992), reiterated that the creamy layer was to ensure that reservation benefits are not extended to those who are no longer backwards. Thus, if non-deserving candidates are given such a benefit, it would breach the spirit of the constitutional provision. 

The bench further highlighted, "the object of excluding the creamy layer is to ensure that socially advanced sections within the OBCs do not appropriate benefits meant for the genuinely backward. The guidelines in the shape of circulars are therefore, issued by Govt. of India as also by State Govt. in order to ensure that the intended benefits of reservation reach the truly deserving candidates among the backward classes". 

After examining various judgments, the court reiterated the following:

• Only the income of the parents is looked into while determining the status of the creamy layer
• The self-income of the candidate is not relevant
• Income of the husband can be considered only when the candidate is married to a Class I officer
• The candidate is excluded from the status if both parents are class II officers
• The candidate is excluded when the father is a Class II officer and is promoted to Class I officer before the age of 40 years. 

Further, the bench held that the aforementioned guidelines were not exhaustive. The bench also held that while determining the status of the creamy layer, only the income of the parents is considered. The income of the husband is not considered, as he is not a class I officer.  

Thus, the bench held that the OBC reservation granted to respondent no 3 was right and she does not fall in the creamy layer status. 

Therefore, the petitioner was dismissed. 

Case Title: Smt Sunita Yadav v State of Madhya Pradesh [WP-8426-2021]

For Petitioner: Senior Advocate M.P.S. Raghuvanshi with Advocate Manish Gurjar

For State: Government Advocate Sohit Mishra

For Respondent no 2: Advocate Shashank Indapurkar

For Respondent no 3: Advocate Amit Lahoti

Click here to read/download the Order