Parity mandated between government and private/PSU employees for determining OBC Non-Creamy Layer eligibility.

The applicant, a 24-year-old candidate, filed an Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking a direction to the Union of India (Respondent No. 1) to allocate her a service by treating her as an OBC Non-Creamy Layer (NCL) candidate

She further challenged the validity of Office Memorandum No. 36012/22/93-Estt. (SC'F) dated October 14, 2004, issued by the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT)

The applicant contended that her grievance regarding the determination of her "Creamy Layer" status was identical to an issue recently adjudicated by the Supreme Court

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to service allocation as an OBC Non-Creamy Layer candidate based on the legal principles governing the parity between government employees and employees of private/PSU entities

2. Whether the respondents are required to create supernumerary posts to accommodate candidates eligible for NCL status pursuant to recent judicial clarifications

The Tribunal primarily applied the ratio decidendi from the Supreme Court judgment in Union of India Ors. v. Rohith Nathan Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 2827-2829/2018), decided on March 11, 2026

This precedent established that treating similarly placed employees of private entities and PSUs differently from government employees and their wards when determining NCL reservation eligibility constitutes "hostile discrimination" and violates the cornerstone of equality under the Constitution

The court also referenced the 21st Report of the Parliamentary Committee on the Welfare of Other Backward Classes regarding the creation of supernumerary posts

The Tribunal observed that the issue at hand was no longer res integra due to the Supreme Court's findings in Rohith Nathan.

In that decision, the Apex Court held that an interpretation disadvantaging one segment of a backward class without rational justification amounts to treating equals as unequals

The Tribunal noted that the Supreme Court had specifically addressed pending representations and proceedings before the DoPT and Administrative Tribunals, directing that supernumerary posts be created to accommodate candidates who satisfy the clarified NCL criteria

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant’s claim for service allocation must be re-evaluated by the respondents in light of these established principles to ensure non-discriminatory treatment

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

All pending Miscellaneous Applications were disposed of, and no costs were awarded