Differential treatment of PSU and government employees for OBC Non-Creamy Layer status constitutes hostile discrimination.

The applicant, an Other Backward Classes (OBC) candidate for the UPSC Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2023, filed an Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

She sought a direction to the Union of India to allocate her service by treating her as an OBC Non-Creamy Layer (NCL) candidate and requested the setting aside of Office Memorandum No. 36012/22/93-Estt.(SCT) dated 14th October 2004

The applicant contended that her case was identical to the legal issue recently settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India Ors. v. Rohith Nathan Ors. (2026), which addressed the criteria for determining creamy layer status among different categories of employees

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be considered under the OBC Non-Creamy Layer category for service allocation in the UPSC CSE 2023 based on the ratio laid down in Union of India Ors. v. Rohith Nathan Ors.

2. Whether the Office Memorandum dated 14th October 2004, regarding creamy layer criteria, remains sustainable in light of recent judicial precedents

The Tribunal primarily relied upon the ratio decidendi of the Supreme Court in Union of India Ors. v. Rohith Nathan Ors., Civil Appeal No. 2827-2829/2018 (decided on 11.03.2026)

The Supreme Court held that treating similarly placed employees of private entities and PSUs differently from Government employees for the purpose of reservation eligibility constitutes hostile discrimination and violates the cornerstone of equality in the Republic

The court further referenced the 21st Report of the Parliamentary Committee on the Welfare of Other Backward Classes regarding the creation of supernumerary posts to accommodate eligible NCL candidates

The Tribunal observed that the applicant’s counsel specifically drew attention to paragraphs 40 to 44 of the Rohith Nathan judgment, arguing that the facts and legal questions involved were identical

The Tribunal noted the Supreme Court’s reasoning that an interpretation disadvantaging one segment of the same backward class without rational justification is the "antithesis of equality"

Without delving into a de novo merit assessment, the Tribunal accepted that the applicant's claim fell within the scope of the Supreme Court's mandate to reconsider cases involving NCL criteria as clarified in the 2026 judgment

Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the respondents were duty-bound to apply the Supreme Court’s principles to the applicant’s service allocation claim

The respondents are directed to complete this exercise and take appropriate steps within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the order

No order was made as to costs