Yadav Vivek Kumar Parasnath vs Union Of India

$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 30.03.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 21.04.2026
Judgment uploaded on: 21.04.2026
+ W.P.(C) 8055/2023
YADAV VIVEK KUMAR PARASNATH .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Shashank Ratnoo, Mr.
Vibhav Mishra, Mr. Shantanu
Lakhotia, Mr. Divyaveer Singh
and Mr. Brajesh Pandey,
Advocates.
versus

UNION OF INDIA .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ripudaman Bhardwaj,
CGSC.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN
J U D G M E N T
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.:
1. Through the present Petition, the Petitioner prays for issuance
of a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 07.11.2022
[hereinafter referred to as the ‘Impugned Order’] passed by the
learned Central Administrative Tribunal [hereinafter referred to as the
‘Tribunal’] in O.A. No. 3246/2022, whereby the Original Application
preferred by the Petitioner came to be dismissed at the threshold, with
the Tribunal upholding the decision of the Respondent to treat the
Petitioner as falling within the ‘creamy layer’ and consequently
denying him the benefit of reservation under the Other Backward
Classes [‘OBC’] category for the purposes of service allocation
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:28:10
W.P.(C) 8055/2023 Page 1 of 20

pursuant to the Civil Services Examination, 2021.
2. The issue which arises for consideration in the present Petition
is whether the Impugned Order suffers from any infirmity in law or on
facts in upholding the action of the respondent in treating the
Petitioner as falling within the ‘creamy layer’, on account of the
income of his father exceeding the prescribed threshold under the
applicable Office Memorandum dated 08.09.1993 read with
subsequent clarifications, and thereby denying him the benefit of
reservation under the OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) category for the
purposes of service allocation in the Civil Services Examination,
2021.
FACTUAL MATRIX:
3. In order to appreciate the controversy involved in the present
Petition, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.
4. The Petitioner participated in the Civil Services Examination,
2021 conducted by the Union Public Service Commission (‘UPSC’)
and secured All India Rank 393 in the final merit list. He applied
under the OBC category and, in that regard, furnished the requisite
certificates, including the certificate pertaining to his OBC Non-
Creamy Layer status, at the stage of submission of the Detailed
Application Form as well as during the subsequent stages of the
selection process.
5. Having qualified in the Preliminary Examination, the Petitioner
was permitted to appear in the Civil Services (Main) Examination.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:28:10
W.P.(C) 8055/2023 Page 2 of 20

Prior thereto, he furnished the requisite details and documents,
including those relating to his category status. Upon being declared
successful in the Mains Examination, the Petitioner was required to
submit further particulars, including details pertaining to the
employment and income of his parents for the preceding years. The
Petitioner thereafter appeared in the personality test/interview and was
declared successful in the said examination.
6. Subsequent to the declaration of the final result, the Respondent
issued service allocation lists in respect of the Civil Services
Examination, 2021. However, the name of the Petitioner did not find
mention in the said lists, and no service came to be allocated to him.
7. Aggrieved by the non-allocation of service, the Petitioner is
stated to have submitted a representation to the Respondent seeking
clarification. The Petitioner also preferred an application under the
Right to Information Act, 2005 seeking disclosure of the reasons for
non-allocation of service.
8. In response to the said application, the Petitioner was informed,
vide communication dated 21.09.2022, that he had been treated as
falling within the ‘creamy layer’ in terms of the provisions contained
in the Office Memorandum dated 08.09.1993 issued by the
Department of Personnel and Training [‘DoPT’]. It was indicated that
the father of the Petitioner, who was employed in a Government
Aided School, was assessed under the income/wealth test, and as his
income exceeded the prescribed limit of Rs. 8 lakhs per annum for
three consecutive financial years, the Petitioner was held to be
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:28:10
W.P.(C) 8055/2023 Page 3 of 20

ineligible for the benefit of reservation under the OBC category in the
Civil Services Examination, 2021.
9. The Petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid determination,
approached the Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 3246/2022, inter alia ,
contending that he belongs to the OBC category and is entitled to be
treated as falling within the Non-Creamy Layer. It was his case that
his father was employed as a Teacher in a Government Aided School
and, therefore, ought to be treated as equivalent to a Group ‘C’
Government employee, with the consequence that the criteria
applicable to Government servants would apply to his case. It was
further contended by the Petitioner that he had been issued a
certificate by the competent authority certifying him as belonging to
the OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) category, and that he had also been
treated as such during the selection process conducted by the UPSC.
On this basis, it was urged that the non-allocation of service to him by
the Respondent was arbitrary and unsustainable.
10. The Respondent opposed the Original Application, contending
that the case of the Petitioner had been examined strictly in
accordance with the applicable rules and instructions governing
determination of creamy layer status. It was submitted that in terms of
the Office Memorandum dated 08.09.1993 issued by the DoPT, the
income of the father of the Petitioner exceeded the prescribed limit of
Rs. 8 lakhs per annum for three consecutive financial years, and
therefore, he was rightly treated as falling within the creamy layer and
held ineligible for availing the benefit of reservation under the OBC
category.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:28:10
W.P.(C) 8055/2023 Page 4 of 20

11. The Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at
the admission stage and upon perusal of the material on record,
proceeded to examine the applicability of the Office Memorandum
dated 08.09.1993, as well as the subsequent clarification issued by the
DoPT on 14.10.2004, in the context of the facts of the present case.
The Tribunal noted that the said framework specifically provides for
determination of creamy layer status in cases where equivalence or
comparability of posts vis-à-vis Government posts has not been
established. It was observed that in such cases, the income of the
parents from salary and from other sources was required to be
assessed in terms of the income/wealth test, and where such income
was found to exceed the notified limit for the stipulated period, the
candidate would be treated as falling within the creamy layer.
12. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present
case, the Tribunal recorded that the father of the Petitioner was
employed as a Teacher in a Government Aided School and that no
material had been placed on record to establish equivalence of such
post with any Government post in terms of the applicable instructions.
Consequently, in the absence of any determination of equivalence, the
case of the Petitioner was examined by the Respondent with reference
to the income/wealth criterion, and it was found that the income of his
father exceeded the prescribed limit of Rs. 8 lakhs per annum for three
consecutive financial years.


Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:28:10
W.P.(C) 8055/2023 Page 5 of 20

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:
13. Contentions of the Petitioner:
13.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner assailed the Impugned Order
and submitted that the Petitioner admittedly belongs to the OBC
category and had duly applied as an OBC (Non-Creamy Layer)
candidate in the Civil Services Examination, 2021. The Petitioner had
furnished a valid certificate issued by the competent authority
certifying him as belonging to the OBC (Non-Creamy Layer)
category, which, according to the Petitioner, could not have been
disregarded by the Respondent. It was contended that once the
competent authority has issued such a certificate, the Respondent has
no jurisdiction to sit in appeal over such certification or to
independently re-determine the status of the Petitioner for the
purposes of denying him the benefit of reservation.
13.2. It was further submitted that the Petitioner was treated as an
OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) candidate at all stages of the selection
process conducted by the UPSC, including at the stage of interview,
and therefore, the subsequent denial of service allocation on the
ground that he falls within the creamy layer is arbitrary and amounts
to altering the rules of the game after the completion of the selection
process.
13.3. It was contended that the action of the Respondent in treating
the Petitioner as falling within the creamy layer on the basis of the
income of his father is legally unsustainable, inasmuch as income
from salary cannot be treated as the sole or determinative criterion in
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:28:10
W.P.(C) 8055/2023 Page 6 of 20

the manner adopted by the Respondent while applying the
income/wealth test. In this regard, it was submitted that a correct
interpretation of the Office Memorandum dated 08.09.1993 would
indicate that, in cases where equivalence of posts has not been
established, determination of creamy layer status ought to be based on
income from sources other than salary and agricultural income, and
therefore, the reliance placed by the Respondent on the salary income
of the Petitioner’s father is misplaced.
13.4. Reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Ketan v.
1
Union of India & Ors. , which has since been affirmed by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. Rohith
2
Nathan & Another, Etc. and other connected matters, to contend that
the determination of creamy layer status cannot be based solely on
income, particularly salary income, without due regard to the status
and category of the post held by the parents. It was submitted that the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified that the Office Memorandum
dated 08.09.1993 constitutes the governing framework and that the
clarificatory letter dated 14.10.2004 cannot override or alter its
substantive scheme. Learned counsel submitted that the
income/wealth test operates only as a residual mechanism in cases
where equivalence of posts has not been determined, and even in such
cases, income from salary cannot be mechanically treated as
determinative of creamy layer status. On this basis, it was contended
that the action of the Respondent in treating the Petitioner as falling
within the creamy layer solely on the basis of the salary income of his

1
2018:DHC:1995
2
Civil Appeal Nos. 2827-2829 of 2018
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:28:10
W.P.(C) 8055/2023 Page 7 of 20

father is legally unsustainable.
13.5. It was further contended that the father of the Petitioner is
employed as a Teacher in a Government Aided School and ought to be
treated as equivalent to a Group ‘C’ Government employee. Once
such equivalence is accepted, the criteria applicable to Government
servants would apply, and the Petitioner would not fall within the
creamy layer. It was contended that the non-acceptance of equivalence
by the Respondent, without issuing any reason or providing an
opportunity to the Petitioner, results in violation of Articles 14, 16(4),
19(1)(g), and 21 of the Constitution of India and amounts to arbitrary
and discriminatory treatment.
14. Contentions of the Respondent:
14.1. Per contra , learned counsel for the Respondent supported the
Impugned Order and submitted that the case of the Petitioner has been
examined strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Office
Memorandum dated 08.09.1993 issued by the DoPT, read with
subsequent clarifications issued on 14.10.2004, and all relevant rules
and instructions governing the determination of ‘creamy layer’ status
among OBC candidates. It was contended that the said Office
Memorandum clearly envisages different criteria for determining
creamy layer status depending upon the nature of employment of the
parents of the candidate, and specifically provides for application of
the income/wealth test in cases where equivalence or comparability of
posts vis-à-vis Government posts has not been established.
14.2. It was submitted that the Petitioner’s father, being employed as
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:28:10
W.P.(C) 8055/2023 Page 8 of 20

a Teacher in a Government Aided School, did not fall within the
category of Government employee for the purpose of determining
non-creamy layer status, as equivalence of the post with a Group ‘C’
Government post had not been established or notified by the
competent authority. It was further submitted that in the absence of an
equivalence determination, the income of the Petitioner’s father from
salary and other sources was required to be assessed under the
income/wealth criterion prescribed in the DoPT OM of 1993. The
income of the father, it was stated, exceeded Rs. 8 lakhs per annum for
three consecutive financial years, namely 2017-2018, 2018-2019 and
2019-2020, and therefore, in terms of the OM and its clarifications,
the Petitioner falls within the ‘creamy layer’ and is ineligible for OBC
reservation.
14.3. It was contended that the issue of equivalence of posts is within
the administrative domain of the DoPT and cannot be presumed on the
basis of a State Government notification or a certificate issued by a
local authority. The instructions issued by the DoPT specify that until
a post is formally declared equivalent, the income/wealth test applies.
It was submitted that the action of the Respondents is based on
objective criteria, uniformly applied, and does not suffer from any
arbitrariness, discrimination or mala fides . The Petitioner, having
failed to satisfy the prescribed eligibility conditions, cannot claim a
vested right to service allocation under the OBC category.
14.4. It was then submitted that the Central Government has, in fact,
undertaken an exercise for determination of equivalence in respect of
certain categories such as Public Sector Undertakings, Banks and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:28:10
W.P.(C) 8055/2023 Page 9 of 20

Insurance Institutions through specific policy decisions; however, no
such determination has been made in respect of employees of
Government Aided Schools, and therefore, the Petitioner cannot claim
parity on that basis.
ISSUES FOR DETERMINATION:
15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused
the material placed on record, the following issues arise for
consideration in the present Petition:
I. Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the
Respondents were justified in treating the Petitioner as falling within
the ‘creamy layer’ on the basis of the income/wealth test prescribed
under the Office Memorandum dated 08.09.1993, in the absence of
any established equivalence of the post held by the Petitioner’s father
with a Government post?
II. Whether the action of the Respondents in denying the benefit of
reservation to the Petitioner under the OBC (Non-Creamy Layer)
category, despite the certificate issued by the competent authority and
his participation in the selection process as an OBC candidate, is
arbitrary, unreasonable or violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India?
III. Whether the judgment of this Court in Ketan v. Union of India
& Ors. (supra), as affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union
of India and Others v. Rohith Nathan & Another, Etc. (supra), has
any application to the facts of the present case, and if so, to what
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:28:10
W.P.(C) 8055/2023 Page 10 of 20

effect?
ANALYSIS & FINDINGS:
16. This Court has carefully considered the submissions advanced
on behalf of the parties and perused the material on record.
17. The determination of ‘creamy layer’ status in respect of
candidates belonging to the Other Backward Classes is governed by
the Office Memorandum dated 08.09.1993 issued by the DoPT, as
subsequently clarified from time to time. The said OM lays down a
structured framework for identifying socially advanced persons within
the OBC category who are to be excluded from the benefit of
reservation.
18. A perusal of the said OM indicates that the determination of
‘creamy layer’ status is structured through a detailed Schedule
appended thereto. The said Schedule does not envisage a singular or
linear test, but rather delineates 06 distinct categories for identifying
socially advanced persons who are to be excluded from the benefit of
reservation under the Other Backward Classes. These categories, as
enumerated in the Schedule, are:
i. Constitutional posts;
ii. Service category (Group ‘A’/‘B’ and equivalent posts);
iii. Armed Forces;
iv. Professional Class and Persons engaged in Trade and Industry;
v. Property Owners; and
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:28:10
W.P.(C) 8055/2023 Page 11 of 20

vi. Income/wealth test
Each of these categories constitutes a separate and self-contained basis
of exclusion, and the applicability of one is not contingent upon the
inapplicability of another. It is important to note that the aforesaid
categories do not operate in a hierarchical or sequential manner. The
scheme of the Office Memorandum does not postulate that the
income/wealth criterion would apply only upon exclusion of all other
categories. Rather, if an individual falls within any one of the
specified categories, the rule of exclusion is attracted, and such
individual is liable to be treated as falling within the ‘creamy layer’.
The categories, therefore, operate independently and disjunctively,
and not as mutually dependent stages of determination.
19. It would, therefore, be erroneous to construe the income/wealth
test contained in Category VI as a provision which is attracted only
upon the inapplicability of status-based criteria. The structure of the
Schedule makes it abundantly clear that the categories operate in
parallel, and if a candidate is found to fall within any one of the
specified categories, the rule of exclusion would stand attracted.
20. Insofar as Category VI is concerned, the Office Memorandum
expressly provides as follows:
“ VI. INCOME/WEALTH TEST
Son(s) and daughter(s) of
(a) Persons having gross annual income of Rs. 1 lakh or above or
possessing wealth above the Wealth Tax Act for a period of
three consecutive years.

(b) Persons in Categories I, II, III and V A who are not disentitled
to the benefit of reservation but have income from other sources
of wealth which will bring them within the income/wealth
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:28:10
W.P.(C) 8055/2023 Page 12 of 20

criteria mentioned in (a) above.
Explanation:
(i) Income from salaries or agricultural land shall not be
clubbed;
(ii) The income criteria in terms of rupee will be modified taking
into account the change in its value every three years. If the
situation, however, so demands, the interregnum may be less.
Explanation: Wherever the expression "permanent
incapacitation" occurs in this schedule. It shall mean incapacitation
which results in putting an officer out of service.”
A conjoint reading of Clause (a) and Clause (b) of Category VI thus
leaves no manner of doubt that the income/wealth test is not merely
ancillary in nature, but constitutes an independent and substantive
ground of exclusion. The provision is designed to ensure that persons
who are economically advanced are excluded from the benefit of
reservation, even if they may not fall within the status-based
classifications.
21. The Schedule further clarifies that the income criteria is liable
to be revised periodically to account for changes in economic
conditions. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that while the
threshold was originally fixed at Rs.1 lakh per annum under the Office
Memorandum dated 08.09.1993, the same has been revised from time
to time through subsequent Office Memoranda issued by the DoPT.
22. The said threshold was successively enhanced to Rs. 2.5 lakhs,
Rs. 4.5 lakhs and Rs. 6 lakhs, and most recently, vide Office
Memorandum dated 13.09.2017, the income limit has been revised to
Rs. 8 lakhs per annum. The said revision expressly operates in
substitution of the earlier threshold under Category VI of the Schedule
to the Office Memorandum dated 08.09.1993 and governs the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:28:10
W.P.(C) 8055/2023 Page 13 of 20

determination of creamy layer status for the relevant period. Relevant
portion of OM dated 13.09.2017 reads as under:
“2. It has now been decided to raise the income limit from Rs. 6 lakh
to Rs. 8 lakh per annum for determining the creamy layer amongst the
Other Backward Classes. Accordingly, the expression "Rs. 6 lakh"
under Category VI in the Schedule to this Department's aforesaid
th
O.M. dated 8 September, 1993 would be substituted by "Rs. 8 lakh".
3. The provisions of this office memorandum have effect from 1st
September, 2017”
In the backdrop of the aforesaid framework, it is evident that
determination of ‘creamy layer’ status is not confined to an
assessment of the status of the post held by the parents alone, but
extends equally to the economic criteria embodied in Category VI.
The said category applies independently and can be invoked wherever
the factual foundation for its application is established.
23. In the facts of the present case, it is not in dispute that the father
of the Petitioner is employed as a Teacher in a Government Aided
School. The principal contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioner
is that such a post ought to be treated as equivalent to that of a Group
‘C’ Government employee, and consequently, the criteria applicable
to Government servants ought to govern the determination of his
‘creamy layer’ status.
24. However, a perusal of the material placed on record reveals that
no document, notification or determination by the competent authority
has been brought to the notice of this Court to establish that the post
of a Teacher in a Government Aided School has been declared
equivalent to any post in Government service for the purposes of
application of the Office Memorandum dated 08.09.1993. The
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:28:10
W.P.(C) 8055/2023 Page 14 of 20

assertion of equivalence, as urged by the Petitioner, remains
unsupported by any cogent material.
25. It is trite that the question of equivalence of posts, particularly
for the purposes of extending or denying the benefit of reservation
under a central policy framework, is a matter falling within the
domain of the competent authority and is ordinarily required to be
determined through an express policy decision or notification. In the
absence of any such determination, equivalence cannot be presumed
on the basis of functional similarity or on the strength of a certificate
issued by a local authority.
26. In the present case, therefore, in the absence of any established
equivalence of the post held by the Petitioner’s father with a
Government post, the Respondents were justified in proceeding to
examine the case of the Petitioner under the income/wealth criterion,
as contemplated under the Office Memorandum dated 08.09.1993.
27. Once the case of the Petitioner is assessed under the
income/wealth test, the factual position, as borne out from the record,
is that the income of the Petitioner’s father exceeded the prescribed
threshold of Rs. 8 lakhs per annum for three consecutive financial
years, namely 2017-2018, 2018-2019 and 2019-2020. In terms of
Category VI, as amended from time to time, such a finding is
sufficient to attract the rule of exclusion, and the Petitioner would
consequently be liable to be treated as falling within the ‘creamy
layer’.
28. The next contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioner is that
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:28:10
W.P.(C) 8055/2023 Page 15 of 20

he had been issued a valid certificate by the competent authority
certifying him as belonging to the OBC (Non-Creamy Layer)
category, and that such certification ought to have been treated as
conclusive by the Respondents. It was further urged that the Petitioner
was permitted to participate in all stages of the selection process as an
OBC candidate, and therefore, the subsequent denial of service
allocation amounts to altering the rules of the game after the selection
process had concluded.
29. This Court is unable to accept the aforesaid submission. The
certificate issued by the competent authority is undoubtedly a relevant
document for the purposes of establishing eligibility; however, such
certification cannot be construed as conclusive so as to foreclose the
power of the Respondents to verify the correctness of the claim in
accordance with the applicable rules and instructions. The
determination of ‘creamy layer’ status, particularly in the context of a
centralised selection process such as the Civil Services Examination,
is required to be undertaken with reference to the governing policy
framework, and the Respondents cannot be precluded from examining
whether the candidate satisfies the prescribed criteria.
30. Insofar as the contention relating to alteration of the rules of the
game is concerned, it is to be noted that the applicable criteria for
determining ‘creamy layer’ status were in existence prior to the
initiation of the selection process and continued to govern the field
throughout. The mere fact that the Petitioner was provisionally
permitted to participate in the selection process on the basis of the
documents furnished by him does not confer upon him a vested or
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:28:10
W.P.(C) 8055/2023 Page 16 of 20

enforceable right to be treated as falling within the OBC (Non-Creamy
Layer) category, in the event it is subsequently found that he does not
satisfy the prescribed conditions.
31. It is well settled that eligibility conditions, including those
relating to reservation, are subject to verification at appropriate stages
of the selection process, and where a candidate is found ineligible
upon such verification, the denial of the corresponding benefit cannot
be said to be arbitrary or violative of Articles 14 or 16 of the
Constitution of India. In the present case, the action of the
Respondents in examining the claim of the Petitioner with reference to
the applicable criteria, and in denying the benefit of reservation upon
finding that he falls within the ‘creamy layer’, cannot be faulted on
this ground.
32. The Petitioner has placed considerable reliance upon the
decision of this Court in Ketan (supra), as affirmed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Rohith Nathan (supra), to contend that the
determination of ‘creamy layer’ status cannot be founded solely upon
income, particularly income from salary, and that primacy must be
accorded to the status-based criteria envisaged under the Office
Memorandum dated 08.09.1993.
33. At the outset, it is necessary to observe that the OM dated
08.09.1993 postulates a multi-faceted framework comprising distinct
and independent categories for determining exclusion from the benefit
of reservation. As already noticed hereinabove, Categories I to V
provide for status-based exclusions, while Category VI embodies the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:28:10
W.P.(C) 8055/2023 Page 17 of 20

income/wealth test. These categories are not hierarchical in nature, nor
are the applicability of one contingent upon the inapplicability of
another. The scheme of the Office Memorandum makes it abundantly
clear that if an individual falls within any one of the specified
categories, the consequence of exclusion from the OBC (Non-Creamy
Layer) category ensues.
34. In this backdrop, the ratio of Rohith Nathan (supra) must be
appreciated in its proper factual and legal context. The said decision
does not lay down an absolute proposition that income, or more
particularly salary income, is irrelevant for the purposes of
determining ‘creamy layer’ status. Rather, it underscores that the
structured framework of the OM dated 08.09.1993 must be adhered to,
and that the income/wealth test cannot be invoked in a manner that
dilutes or overrides the status-based classifications where they are
clearly applicable.
35. The present case, however, stands on a materially different
footing. As already held hereinabove, the Petitioner has failed to
establish that the post held by his father in a Government Aided
School is equivalent to any recognised category of Government
service so as to attract the application of Category II or any other
status-based classification under the Office Memorandum. In the
absence of such equivalence, the case of the Petitioner does not fall
within the ambit of the status-based categories, thereby necessitating
recourse to the income/wealth test under Category VI.
36. Once Category VI is attracted, the determination is required to
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:28:10
W.P.(C) 8055/2023 Page 18 of 20

be undertaken strictly in terms of the criteria prescribed therein.
Clause VI(a) of the Schedule stipulates that sons and daughters of
persons having gross annual income above the notified threshold for a
period of three consecutive years would fall within the ‘creamy layer’.
Clause VI(b) further clarifies that even in cases where a person falling
within Categories I to V is not otherwise disentitled on the basis of
status, the existence of income from other sources, satisfying the
threshold prescribed under Clause VI(a), would nonetheless attract
exclusion. The Explanations appended thereto, including the
stipulation that income thresholds are subject to periodic revision,
reinforce the dynamic and self-contained nature of the income/wealth
criterion.
37. In the considered view of this Court, therefore, the reliance
placed by the Petitioner on Rohith Nathan (supra) is misconceived.
The said judgment does not preclude the application of the
income/wealth test in cases where the status-based categories are
inapplicable or where equivalence of posts has not been established.
On the contrary, a harmonious reading of the Office Memorandum, as
affirmed in Rohith Nathan (supra), supports the conclusion that the
income/wealth test operates as an independent and determinative
criterion in such cases. The present case squarely falls within this
framework, and the action of the Respondents in applying the income
criterion cannot be faulted on the basis of the said decision.
CONCLUSION:
38. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:28:10
W.P.(C) 8055/2023 Page 19 of 20

considered opinion that the determination made by the Respondents,
as affirmed by the learned Tribunal, does not suffer from any infirmity
in law or on facts. The Petitioner has failed to establish that the post
held by his father has been recognised as equivalent to any
Government post for the purposes of application of the OM dated
08.09.1993. In the absence of such equivalence, the application of the
income/wealth criterion by the Respondents cannot be faulted.
39. This Court is also mindful of the limited scope of judicial
review in matters relating to administrative determinations based on
policy frameworks such as the one governing identification of
‘creamy layer’ among OBC candidates. Unless such determination is
shown to be manifestly arbitrary, contrary to the governing rules, or
vitiated by mala fides , interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution is not warranted. No such ground has been made out in
the present case.
40. Accordingly, finding no merit in the present Petition, the same
is dismissed.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

AMIT MAHAJAN, J.
APRIL 21, 2026
jai/pal

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN
Signing Date:21.04.2026
15:28:10
W.P.(C) 8055/2023 Page 20 of 20