OBC Non-Creamy Layer status determination must maintain parity between government and private or PSU sector employees.

The applicant, a candidate in the UPSC Civil Services Examination (CSE) 2024, filed an Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

He sought a direction to the respondents (Union of India through DoPT) to recognize him as an OBC Non-Creamy Layer (NCL) candidate and consequently allocate a service and cadre based on his rank and eligibility

The applicant’s primary contention was that his case was squarely covered by a recent Supreme Court precedent regarding the criteria for determining NCL status for candidates whose parents are employed in private entities or Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs)

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be considered an OBC Non-Creamy Layer candidate for the UPSC Civil Services Examination 2024 based on the principles established by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rohith Nathan & Ors.

2. Whether the respondents are required to create supernumerary posts to accommodate the applicant if he meets the eligibility criteria

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

That judgment established that treating similarly placed employees of private entities/PSUs differently from government employees for the purpose of reservation entitlement constitutes "hostile discrimination" and violates the cornerstone of equality under the Constitution

The Supreme Court further directed the creation of supernumerary posts, as recorded in the 21st Report of the Parliamentary Committee on the Welfare of OBCs, to accommodate candidates who satisfy the NCL criteria

The applicant argued that the issue regarding the interpretation of NCL status for similarly situated individuals had already been settled by the Apex Court

The Tribunal examined paragraphs 40 to 44 of the Rohith Nathan judgment, noting the Supreme Court's conclusion that an interpretation disadvantaging one segment of a backward class without rational justification amounts to treating equals as unequals

The Tribunal observed that the Supreme Court had specifically directed the Appellants (DoPT) to consider the claims of intervenors and similarly situated candidates within six months

While the respondents requested time to verify the applicability of the precedent to the specific facts of the applicant's case, the Tribunal found it appropriate to dispose of the matter by binding the respondents to the ratio of the Supreme Court decision without further delay

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

No order as to costs was made