The Madhya Pradesh High Court (Gwalior Bench) has held that 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. Since the respondent no.3 does not fall in any of the excluded category of creamy layer, the Court held that she was entitled to and has rightly given the benefit of her status as an OBC candidate.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Ashish Shroti observed that 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 status of creamy layer is not to be determined solely based upon the financial status but is basically to be determined based upon the social status of the candidate.
From the guidelines issued by GAD vide circular dated Aug 25, 2012, the Bench noted that the income of only parents of candidate is to be looked into while determining his/her status of creamy layer. The self-income of candidate is not relevant for the said purpose. Thus, the income of husband can be looked into only when the candidate is married to a Class-I Officer, whether or not such officer belong to OBC category. Clause 6 of circular also applied only in relation to income of parents and not to the income of candidate himself, and this clause is not applicable when the income is from salary.
Relying on the Apex Court rulings in Siddarth Saini vs. State of Haryana [(2001)10 SCC 625] and Surinder Singh vs. Punjab SEB [(2014)15 SCC 767], the Bench observed that it is the income/wealth of the parents of the individual concerned which is of relevance, and the description is clearly silent about the individual’s own income.
The Bench found that the challenge to the candidature of respondent no.3 is only based upon income of her husband, which is not relevant unless the husband is a Class-I Officer. The husband of respondent no.3 is working as Civil Judge Class-I which is a Class-II post, thus, the objection raised by petitioner is not acceptable. Further, her father was a Class-III officer and has retired as such in the year 2023, and her mother was also housewife.
Briefly, the petitioner challenged the appointment order of respondent no.3, whereby she was appointed on the post of Assistant Professor (Law). The petitioner prayed for a direction to the respondents to appoint her on the post reserved for OBC (woman) candidate with all consequential benefits including seniority. During the pendency of this petition, the petitioner has also been appointed on the post in question, and therefore, the only issue remains is for her seniority from the date respondent no.3 was appointed.
An advertisement was issued by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission (PSC) inviting applications for the post of Assistant Professor, out of which 6 posts were allocated to OBC (women). The written examination was held and the results were declared, wherein the petitioner secured 288 marks and respondent no.3 scored 290 marks, which was the cut off marks for OBC (women). In the revised select list, the respondent no.3 was placed at serial no.34 while petitioner was at serial no.35. The respondent no.3 was given appointment on the post, while the petitioner was kept at serial no.1 in waiting list.
It is therefore the grievance of the petitioner that respondent no.3 belongs to Creamy Layer as her husband is a Civil Judge Class-I (2008 Batch) and she herself has been earning Rs.30,000/- per month as Guest Faculty. The petitioner submitted that as per Corrigendum issued by the PSC, the annual income of creamy layer is determined as Rs.8 lakh and above, and the salary of respondent no.3’s family exceeds Rs.8 lakh.
Appearances:
Senior Advocate M.P.S. Raghuvanshi and Advocate Manish Gurjar, for the Petitioner
Advocates Sohit Mishra, Shashank Indapurkar, and Amit Lahoti, for the Respondent
