PSU employees must be treated at par with Government employees for determining OBC Non-Creamy Layer reservation eligibility.

The applicant, an OBC candidate (Roll No. 0849375), challenged an impugned communication dated 03.10.2023 which presumably denied her benefit under the Other Backward Classes (OBC) Non-Creamy Layer category

She sought a direction for the respondents to treat her as a Non-Creamy Layer OBC candidate, include her in the service allocation list based on her merit rank, and provide consequential benefits

The applicant contended that her case was squarely covered by a recent Supreme Court judgment regarding the criteria for determining the "creamy layer" status

Whether the applicant is entitled to be treated as an OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) candidate and allocated service based on the legal principles established in Union of India & Ors. v. Rohith Nathan & Ors.

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

The core principle derived is that treating similarly placed employees of Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) and private entities differently from Government employees when determining "creamy layer" status for reservation purposes constitutes "hostile discrimination" and violates the cornerstone of equality

The Supreme Court further mandated the creation of supernumerary posts to accommodate eligible candidates who meet the clarified non-creamy layer criteria

The applicant argued that the legal controversy regarding her OBC status was identical to the issues resolved in the Rohith Nathan case

The Tribunal examined paragraphs 40 to 44 of the Apex Court’s judgment, noting that the Supreme Court had rejected interpretations that disadvantaged segments of the same backward class without rational justification

The Tribunal observed that the Supreme Court had specifically directed the government to consider the claims of all similarly situated candidates and intervenors within a fixed timeline

Consequently, without adjudicating the specific factual merits or the respondents' counter-claims, the Tribunal determined that the respondents must evaluate the applicant's eligibility through the lens of the Supreme Court’s clarified criteria

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

No order was made as to costs