PSU and government employees must be treated equally for determining OBC Non-Creamy Layer reservation eligibility.

The applicant, a candidate in the UPSC Civil Services Examination 2020, filed an Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

He sought a direction to be treated as an OBC Non-Creamy Layer (NCL) candidate and for the subsequent allocation of service

Additionally, he challenged the validity of Office Memorandum ("OM") No. 36012/22/93-Estt.(SCT) dated 14th October 2004

The applicant contended that his claim was covered by a recent Supreme Court decision regarding the determination of NCL status

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be considered as an OBC Non-Creamy Layer candidate for the Civil Services Examination 2020 in light of recent judicial precedents

2. Whether the claim of the applicant is identical to the issues settled in Union of India & Ors. v. Rohith Nathan & Ors.

The Tribunal primarily applied the principles established 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 and their wards regarding reservation entitlement amounts to hostile discrimination and violates the cornerstone of equality

The Court further directed the creation of supernumerary posts to accommodate candidates satisfying the clarified NCL criteria

The Tribunal noted the applicant’s submission that the legal issue involved—the classification of NCL status for children of employees in various sectors—had been conclusively settled by the Supreme Court in the Rohith Nathan case

The Tribunal reviewed paragraphs 40 to 44 of the Apex Court’s judgment, which emphasized that rational justification is required to distinguish between segments of the same backward class

The Supreme Court had already directed the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) to consider the claims of successful candidates and intervenors in accordance with these principles and to implement the same via supernumerary posts if necessary

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant’s claim warranted similar consideration by the respondents

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

No order as to costs was issued