Parity between PSU and government employees is mandatory for determining OBC non-creamy layer reservation eligibility.

The applicant, a 29-year-old candidate for the UPSC Civil Services Examination, filed an Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

She sought a direction to the Respondent (Department of Personnel and Training) to classify her as an OBC Non-Creamy Layer (NCL) candidate and consequently allocate service and seniority

The applicant’s primary contention was that her legal grievance regarding OBC-NCL status was identical to an issue recently adjudicated by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be considered an OBC Non-Creamy Layer candidate for service allocation in light of the precedent established in Union of India & Ors. v. Rohith Nathan & Ors.

The Tribunal primarily relied on the precedent set by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Rohith Nathan & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2827-2829/2018, dated 11.03.2026)

The Supreme Court held that treating similarly placed employees of private entities/PSUs differently from Government employees regarding reservation entitlement constitutes "hostile discrimination"

The court emphasized that the cornerstone of the Republic is equality, and disadvantaging a segment of the same backward class without rational justification is the "antithesis of equality"

Furthermore, it directed the creation of supernumerary posts to accommodate candidates satisfying the NCL criteria as per the 21st Report of the Parliamentary Committee on the Welfare of Other Backward Classes

The Tribunal noted the applicant’s submission that the legal issue regarding her NCL status was squarely covered by the Rohith Nathan judgment

In that decision, the Apex Court dismissed the government's appeals and directed that the claims of candidates and intervenors be considered based on the principles of equality between different employment sectors (Government vs. PSU/Private)

Without delving into the specific merits of the applicant’s counter-affidavit, the Tribunal found that the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment mandated a fresh consideration of the applicant's claim by the respondents

The Tribunal determined that the respondents must apply the clarified NCL criteria to the applicant to ensure consistency with the Supreme Court's directive on non-discrimination within the backward classes

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

No order was made as to costs, and all pending Miscellaneous Applications were disposed of