The Kerala High Court has clarified an important aspect regarding the eligibility for non-creamy layer status among children of private sector employees. On Wednesday, the court stated that the salary income of private sector employees must be considered when determining eligibility for a non-creamy layer certificate (XXX v Union of India & others and connected case).
High Court’s Determination on Eligibility
Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas delivered the verdict, emphasizing that children of high-earning private sector employees cannot automatically claim reservation benefits. The court’s decision arose from petitions filed by two students from the Other Backward Classes (OBCs) who sought non-creamy layer status to apply for the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) and the Kerala Engineering Architectural Medical Entrance Examination (KEAM). Their applications for non-creamy layer certificates had been denied as their parents’ income exceeded the prescribed limits.
Government Order and Its Implications
A Government Order (GO) issued on January 1, 2015, outlines the criteria for excluding candidates who fall within the creamy layer from admission to professional degree courses. This order categorizes candidates based on their parents’ occupations and whether they belong to families of constitutional functionaries, government servants, or employees of public sector undertakings.
For private sector employees whose positions aren’t declared equivalent to government posts, the assessment is made using the income and wealth test. Justice Thomas noted, “It is evident that the gross annual income is the factor to be reckoned for persons employed in the private sector, where the equivalent or comparable posts have not been notified.”
Petitioners’ Arguments and Court’s Response
The petitioners argued that the income from their parents’ private sector jobs should not be included in determining eligibility for non-creamy layer status. One petitioner claimed that her father’s annual salary of ₹1.12 crore should be excluded, while another claimed similar exclusion for his father’s ₹33 lakh annual income from a UK Consumer Bank.
The state opposed these claims, highlighting additional assets owned by the petitioners’ families, such as multiple properties and high-value vehicles, which indicated a level of affluence inconsistent with non-creamy layer status. The court rejected the petitioners’ arguments, clarifying that the explanation in the Government Order was intended for government employees’ income assessments, not private sector employees.
Legal Precedents and Conclusion
The court referenced the Supreme Court’s rulings in the Indira Sawhney cases, underscoring that the lack of notification for equivalent private sector posts should not automatically qualify private sector employees for non-creamy layer status. The judgment stated, “While calculating the gross annual income of a person, to exclude the salary income for identifying the Non-Creamy Layer, will lead to absurd and anomalous situations, contrary to the principles for exclusion of Creamy Layer.”
Ultimately, the court upheld the authorities’ decisions to deny the non-creamy layer certificates, affirming that the parents of both petitioners possessed income and assets beyond the prescribed limits. The petitioners were represented by a team of advocates, with Central government counsel Rahul Venugopal representing the Union, and state government pleaders Laya Mary Joseph and Unni Sebastian Kappan appearing for the state.
