Wards of PSU and aided-institution employees entitled to OBC-NCL status parity with government employees.

The applicant, a 25-year-old candidate for the UPSC Civil Services Examination, filed this Original Application (O.A.) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985

He sought a direction to be considered an OBC Non-Creamy Layer (NCL) candidate and challenged the Office Memorandum (OM) dated 14th October 2004, alleging it created discriminatory treatment against children of employees of government-aided institutions

During the proceedings, both parties agreed that the legal issue was identical to a matter already decided by a coordinate Bench on 13.03.2026 in O.A. No. 1860/2023, which followed a landmark Supreme Court ruling

1. Whether the applicant is entitled to be considered under the OBC Non-Creamy Layer category for the UPSC Civil Services Examination based on the parity of treatment between wards of government employees and those of employees in government-aided institutions/PSUs

2. Whether the criteria for determining 'Creamy Layer' status as per OM No. 36033/5/2004-Estt.(SCT) results in hostile discrimination

The Tribunal primarily relied on 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)

This precedent holds that treating similarly placed employees of PSUs and private entities differently from government employees when determining reservation eligibility amounts to "hostile discrimination" and violates the cornerstone of equality in the Constitution

The court further referenced the 21st Report of the Parliamentary Committee on the Welfare of Other Backward Classes regarding the creation of supernumerary posts for such candidates

The Tribunal observed that the controversy regarding the discriminatory application of the "Creamy Layer" criteria to different categories of employees had been settled by the Apex Court

In Rohith Nathan, the Supreme Court reasoned that disadvantaging one segment of the same backward class without rational justification treats equals as unequals, which is the antithesis of equality

Since the learned counsels for both the applicant and the Union of India conceded that the present O.A. was squarely covered by the ratio in Rohith Nathan and the subsequent coordinate Bench order dated 13.03.2026, the Tribunal found no reason to deviate from that path

The Tribunal determined that the applicant’s claim must be evaluated under the clarified principles of the Non-Creamy Layer criteria to ensure constitutional parity

The respondents are 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