Source –\u00a0indiatimes.com<\/p>\n
NEW DELHI: The Delhi high court has slammed the Centre\u2019s method of calculating the \u201ccreamy layer\u201d for wards of persons from \u201cOther Backward Classes\u201d working in PSUs \u2014 a key reason behind the rejection of many OBC aspirants for IAS and other elite services over the last five years.<\/p>\n
In a crucial judgment last week, the HC directed the Centre to recalculate the \u201ccreamy layer\u201d for petitioners within eight weeks \u2013 reviving hopes that they may be able to join the civil services after being rejected earlier.
\n\u201cCreamy layer\u201d pertains to better off individuals among OBCs, who are ineligible for Mandal reservations.<\/p>\n
The Delhi HC judgement has major implications for OBC aspirants for central services. While the order pertains to 12 OBC aspirants who cleared UPSC\u2019s Civil Services Examination in 2015 before being turned down, it may boost the case of, by an estimate, over 60 candidates who have been rejected in last few years.<\/p>\n
More crucially, it may have a serious bearing on the way the Centre calculates \u201ccreamy layer\u201d for OBC children with PSU background — alleged to be \u201cdiscriminatory\u201d when compared to \u201cbackwards\u201d employed in central and state governments.
\nThe Delhi HC order follows a similar one by the Madras High Court in August 2017, directing the Centre to use the same formula for both categories of OBCs.<\/p>\n
The controversy revolves around differing principles applied to determine \u201ccreamy layer\u201d.
\nAccording to government guidelines, while Group A and Group B are ineligible for Mandal quotas, others are eligible if their annual income from other sources does not exceed Rs 8 lakh. The annual income does not include salaries of parents.<\/p>\n
While DoPT has been determining the \u201ccreamy layer\u201d for PSU background by including the salaries of parents, it has been excluding the salaries of parents employed in central or state governments \u2013 putting the first category at a disadvantage.<\/p>\n
The DoPT told the Delhi HC that \u201ccreamy layer\u201d for PSU candidates follows the principle spelt out in its communication of October 14, 2004. On the other hand, the petitioners argued that the October 14 order \u201cdiscriminates the employees of PSUs vis-a-vis the government employees, and ought to be quashed\u201d. In its order, the high court agreed with the petitioners.<\/p>\n
In August 2017, the Madras HC had ruled that if salary of parents employed in government is not a criteria for assessing \u201ccreamy layer\u201d, the salary of a PSU employee \u201cas a test for identifying creamy layer brings in the element of hostile discrimination\u201d. Though the Centre has appealed against the Madras HC order in the Supreme Court, it is to be seen how it reacts to the Delhi high court judgement.<\/p>\n
The confusion over \u201ccreamy layer\u201d is a result of the Centre\u2019s failure to determine the posts in PSUs as falling under Group A, B, C and D as happens in the government \u2013 a process called \u201cequivalence of posts\u201d.<\/p>\n