OBC non-creamy layer status determination must be uniform across government, PSU, and private sector employment.

The applicant, Patil Aditya Rajkumar, filed a Contempt Petition (C.P. No. 272/2026) arising out of Original Application (O.A.) No. 1990/2024

The dispute concerned the applicant's entitlement to reservation benefits.

During the proceedings, the respondents submitted that the legal issue involved had been definitively settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a recent judgment dated March 11, 2026, in the case of Union of India & Ors. v. Rohith Nathan & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2827-2829/2018)

The respondents contended that the applicant's situation was identical to the issues resolved in the aforementioned Supreme Court ruling

1. Whether the claim of the applicant regarding his entitlement to reservation under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category is governed by the ratio laid down in Union of India & Ors. v. Rohith Nathan & Ors.

2. Whether the respondents are required to create supernumerary posts or re-evaluate the applicant's non-creamy layer status in light of the Supreme Court's directives

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rohith Nathan & Ors. (2026).

The Supreme Court held that treating similarly placed employees of private entities or PSUs differently from government employees for the purpose of OBC reservation entitlement constitutes "hostile discrimination" and violates the principle of equality

the court applied the directive that the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) must create supernumerary posts to accommodate candidates who satisfy the non-creamy layer criteria as clarified in the judgment

The Tribunal noted the respondent's admission that the present case was identical to the Rohith Nathan matter

It scrutinized paragraphs 40 to 44 of the Apex Court’s judgment, which emphasized that disadvantaged segments of the same backward class cannot be treated unequally without rational justification

The Tribunal observed that the Supreme Court had already directed the DoPT to implement these findings for all similarly situated candidates and intervenors within six months

By adopting this ratio, the Tribunal reasoned that the applicant’s claim must be re-evaluated by the respondents to ensure compliance with the constitutional mandate of equality and the specific procedural directions regarding supernumerary posts

The respondents were ordered to complete this exercise within six months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order

Notices were discharged, and no order as to costs was made