'If Parents Are IAS Officers, Why Reservation For Their Children?': Supreme Court

The Supreme Court today questioned whether children of families that have achieved educational and economic advancement through reservation should continue to avail other backward classes (OBC) reservation benefits, observing that such advancements result in social mobility too.

"If both parents are IAS officers, why should they have reservations? With education and economic empowerment, there is social mobility. So then again to seek reservation for the children, we will never get out of it," Justice BV Nagarathna said.

"That is a matter we have to be concerned about. Also, what is the use then? You are giving a reservation. The parents have studied, they are in good jobs, they are getting good income, and the children want reservation again. See, they should get out of reservation," Justice Nagarathna said.

The bench of Justices Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan made the observations while hearing a petition against a Karnataka High Court judgment upholding exclusion of the petitioner, whose parents are both state government employees, from reservation on the ground of creamy layer.

The case concerns a candidate belonging to the Kuruba community, classified under category II(A) among Karnataka's backward classes, who was selected for appointment as assistant engineer (electrical) in the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Ltd under the reserved category.

However, the District Caste and Income Verification Committee denied him a caste validity certificate after concluding that he fell within the creamy layer. The candidate's family income was assessed at about Rs 19.48 lakh annually.

The authorities noted that both parents were government employees and that their combined income exceeded the prescribed creamy layer threshold. During the hearing, Justice Nagarathna repeatedly expressed concern that reservation benefits were continuing even after families had progressed socially and economically.

She said social status improves with economic and educational empowerment, and questioned the rationale of extending reservation benefits to children whose parents are educated, hold good jobs and earn substantial incomes.

"There has to be some balance. Socially and educationally backward, yes, but once the parents have attained a level because of taking advantage of reservation, if they are both IAS officers, both are in government service, they are very well placed. Social mobility is there. Now they are questioning the exclusion. This also has to be kept in mind," Justice Nagarathna said.

The observations came after lawyer Shashank Ratnoo said salary income is not the determining criterion for identifying creamy layer among government servants. He said the creamy layer exclusion depends on the status of the parents, such as whether they belong to Group A or Group B services, and not merely on their salary income.

If salary were treated as the sole criterion, even drivers, peons, clerks and other lower-ranking government employees could be excluded from reservation benefits, he said, adding that for government employees, salary income was not the determining factor for creamy layer.

He said income from salary and agriculture could not be considered, and only income generated through business or other sources could be considered. He also pointed out there are divergent judicial views on the issue, and it needed a detailed look.

Justice Nagarathna noted that in this case, the petitioner's father was drawing a basic pay of Rs 53,900 per month while the mother was drawing a basic pay of Rs 52,650 per month.

Ratnoo said these figures were not relevant for determining creamy layer status relying on a Karnataka government clarification stating that where parents were state government employees, salary and allowances should not be considered while assessing eligibility.

He submitted that if all forms of income were taken into account while determining creamy layer status, no distinction would remain between OBC reservation and economically weaker section (EWS) reservation.

The petition arises from a judgment of a division bench of the Karnataka High Court which overturned a single judge's decision in favour of the candidate. The division bench held that the rule excluding salary income for determination of creamy layer applied only to reservations under the Union government and not to reservations in Karnataka.

Referring to Karnataka's creamy layer policy, the high court held that the candidate's family income exceeded the applicable threshold and that he fell within the creamy layer.