Facts
The applicant, Rutherson S, secured an All India rank of 598 in the Civil Services Examination, 2023.
Source reference: no citationHe participated in every stage of the CSE-2023 and submitted a valid OBC-Non Creamy Layer certificate.
Source reference: p.2Despite this, the Department of Personnel & Training (DOP&T) denied him service allocation, unilaterally categorizing him as belonging to the “Creamy Layer” without notice, written order, or verification from the State authority.
Source reference: p.2The DOP&T's decision was based on the erroneous assumption that the applicant's mother, a Secondary Grade Assistant Teacher in a fully Government-aided school in Tamil Nadu, was in "private employment" and her income attracted the Income/Wealth test under category VI of the 1993 OM.
Source reference: p.2The applicant presented an OBC certificate dated 06.08.2022 from the Tahsildar, Nanguneri Taluk, certifying that he does not belong to the creamy layer as per the Government of India's OMs dated 08.09.1993, 27.05.2013, and 13.09.2017.
Source reference: p.3He also submitted a communication dated 15.10.2024 from the Department of Social Justice & Empowerment to the DoP&T, stating that his mother's post in a Government-aided school is classified as Group C, equivalent to State Government posts, and thus he falls under the OBC Non-Creamy Layer category.
Source reference: p.3A certificate of employment for his mother, Smt. K. Prema Vasanthakumari, confirmed her regular employment, eligibility for pension benefits as per Government servant rules, and categorization as "Group C".
Source reference: p.4The Finance Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu's Statement of Posts and Scales of Pay also confirmed that her pay scale falls under the Group C category.
Source reference: p.5The UPSC stated that service allocation was the exclusive domain of the DoP&T and they had no role.
Source reference: p.2-3The respondents (Union of India and Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment) did not submit a written statement or counter affidavit despite being given opportunities.
Source reference: p.5Issues
Whether the DoP&T's unilateral categorization of the applicant as belonging to the "Creamy Layer" for service allocation, despite a valid OBC-Non Creamy Layer certificate, is arbitrary and violative of constitutional principles.
Source reference: p.2Whether the mother's employment as a Secondary Grade Assistant Teacher in a fully Government-aided school in Tamil Nadu categorizes her as "private employment" for the purpose of Creamy Layer identification under the DOPT's O.M. dated 08.09.1993.
Source reference: p.2Law Applied
The court primarily referenced the Government of India, Department of Personnel & Training O.M.No.36012/22/93-Estt.(SCT), dated 08.09.1993.
Source reference: p.3This OM specifies that reservations shall not apply to persons/sections mentioned in column 3 of its Schedule.
Source reference: p.5Specifically, the relevant provision for this case implies that Group C employees are not covered under Para 2(c)(i) for Creamy Layer exclusion.
Source reference: p.5The OM was modified by subsequent OMs dated 27.05.2013 and 13.09.2017.
Source reference: p.3The court also invoked Articles 14, 15(4), and 16(4) of the Constitution of India, which relate to equality before the law, non-discrimination, and special provisions for the advancement of socially and educationally backward classes.
Source reference: p.2Reasoning
The Tribunal noted that the DoP&T's decision to categorize the applicant as belonging to the “Creamy Layer” was unilateral, made without notice, a written order, or verification from the State authority, and was therefore prima facie arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 15(4), and 16(4) of the Constitution.
Source reference: p.2The DoP&T's assumption that the applicant's mother's employment in a Government-aided school constituted "private employment" was contradicted by the evidence.
Source reference: p.2The OBC certificate clearly stated that the applicant does not belong to the creamy layer as per the relevant O.M. dated 08.09.1993 and its modifications.
Source reference: p.3Furthermore, the communication from the Department of Social Justice & Empowerment explicitly clarified that the mother's post was classified as Group C and effectively equivalent to State Government service, implying Non-Creamy Layer status.
Source reference: p.3-4The employment certificate and the Tamil Nadu Government's Finance Department documents confirmed the mother's Group C status, drawing salary from the Government Treasury and being eligible for pension benefits as a government servant.
Source reference: p.4-5Since Group C employees are not covered under Para 2(c)(i) of the 1993 OM for Creamy Layer exclusion, the applicant, whose mother is Group C and father is a pensioner, should not fall within the creamy layer purview.
Source reference: p.5The respondents' failure to provide instructions or submit a counter-affidavit further weakened their position.
Source reference: p.5Holding
The Tribunal disposed of the OA by directing Respondent No. 1, the DoP&T, Government of India, to consider the applicant's case taking into account the relevant documents/certificates issued by the State/Central Government authorities.
The DoP&T is directed to take a decision as per merit expeditiously within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order.
Source reference: p.5-6The Tribunal held that the OA could not be further delayed given that selections were made and allocations were held up.
Source reference: p.5No order was made as to costs.
Source reference: p.6Original Court PDF
Rutherson S v. Union of India, OA/310/01584/2025
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in