EDITORIAL 1: Creamy layer ‘equivalence’
Context
The government is considering ways to ensure “equivalence” in the application of the ‘creamy layer’ condition in reservation for Other Backward Classes (OBCs) across a range of jobs at central and state government organisations, public sector enterprises, universities, etc.
The concept of ‘creamy layer’
- In its landmark verdict in Indra Sawhney vs Union of India (1992), the Supreme Court upheld the government’s decision to implement the recommendations of the Mandal Commission, but said that affluent sections among the socially and educationally backward classes, the so-called “creamy layer”, must be excluded from job quotas.
- Thereafter, on September 8, 1993, DoPT issued a circular identifying the creamy layer that would be ineligible for OBC reservation.
- Sons and daughters of high constitutional functionaries, and government, PSU, and armed forces officers were included in the list, along with professional class and those engaged in trade and industry and property owners. An “income/ wealth test” was also mentioned.
- Specifically, an individual either of whose parents was a direct recruit to a Group A/ Class I government job, or if the parent was promoted to Group A before the age of 40, was not eligible for the OBC quota.
- An individual both of whose parents were direct recruits to Group B jobs would be part of the creamy layer. Children of armed forces officials only up to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel could avail of the quota.
- For those outside the government sector, the income ceiling was set at Rs 1 lakh per annum. It was subsequently revised upwards, and the limit has been Rs 8 lakh since 2017. However, income from salary and agricultural income is not included.
2004 ‘clarification’ and after
- The above criteria were not comprehensive, especially with regard to jobs outside the government sector.
- So, in 2004, DoPT issued detailed clarifications regarding creamy layer amongst OBCs in order to determine the creamy layer status of sons and daughters of persons employed in organisations where equivalence or comparability of posts vis-à-vis posts in Government has not been evaluated.
- However, these “clarifications” were not widely implemented to deprive individuals of reservation benefits during the UPA years (2004-14), as the government sought to woo OBCs in pursuit of various social justice goals.
- In late 2014, DoPT started examining caste certificates issued by various authorities to determine their compliance with the 2004 “clarification”.
- Between the Civil Services Examinations (CSE) of 2015 and 2023 (batches of 2016-24), DoPT rejected caste certificates of more than 100 successful candidates who would have qualified as OBC under the September 1993 criteria, but who were put in the creamy layer in accordance with the new criteria.
Efforts to find ‘equivalence’
- The unresolved case of the more than 100 candidates determined by DoPT as being in the creamy layer led to consultations among various stakeholder ministries.
- While ‘equivalence’ has been established with regard to the various central PSUs, the process remains pending for others — and the sons/ daughters of a wide range of employees are put in the creamy layer based on their incomes, thanks to “clarification” issued in 2004.
- In June this year, Home Minister Amit Shah and NCBC chairman Hansraj Ahir recommended to the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment that the policy under consideration should be implemented retrospectively so that these more than 100 candidates are also able to benefit.
The likely beneficiaries
- If the proposals are implemented, sons/ daughters of lower-level government employees with annual salaries of more than Rs 8 lakh are likely to benefit the most.
- It will correct the anomaly by which children of government teachers get the benefit of OBC quota, but children of employees of similar rank at government-aided institutions are denied on the basis of income.
- A similar situation exists in several state government organisations. Not much is expected to change for children of employees in the private sector.
Conclusion
The effort is to ensure fairness and uniformity among candidates who are eligible for reservation, and to remove certain anomalies that have arisen in this regard from circulars issued over the years by the Union government’s Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), which formulates policy on recruitments and service conditions.