Anomalies in Implementation of the ‘Creamy Layer’ Segment in the Realisation of Benefits under Reservation Policies in India

Authors

  • Ashok Johnson Rodrigues Christ (Deemed to be University), Bangalore

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12728/culj.18.3

Keywords:

Backward Classes, Discrimination, Equality, Income, Social Justice

Abstract

The term ‘creamy layer’ comprises of socially advanced persons amongst the socially and educationally backward classes in India, for purposes of exclusion from reservation in the public services and education sectors. The Office Memorandum of 1993 classifies backward classes into two groups - Group A and B, for the purpose of identifying the creamy layer in the government sector, while those in other sectors are subject to a ceiling of wealth and annual income. This paper analyses two discriminatory practices relating to the implementation of the creamy layer in India. Firstly, the inequities between posts in public sector undertakings (PSU), banks, etc. visà-vis the government posts embedded in the creamy layer criteria. This has resulted in a denial of jobs in the civil services to candidates from Other Backward Classes, whose parents are employed in public sector undertakings. This anomaly needs to be rectified by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. Secondly, the non-application of the creamy layer to the affluent SC and STs while giving them reservation in promotions as corrected by the Supreme Court in the M. Nagaraj judgment. This has set right the existing anomaly and the government needs to retract its review petition in the Supreme Court

Author Biography

Ashok Johnson Rodrigues, Christ (Deemed to be University), Bangalore

Assistant Professor. 

References

INDIA CONST. Art.38.cl.1; See also, art.46; art. 15. cl. 4, 5; art. 16. cl.4, 4A, 4B; art. 340; art. 342A.

G.I., DoPT, O.M. No. 36012/31/90-Est (SCT), Aug.13, 1990.

G.I., DoPT, O.M. No. 36012/31/90-Est (SCT) Sept 25, 1991.

The resolution, Feb. 22, 1993.

G.I., DoPT, O.M. No. 36012/22/93 Estt. (SCT), Sept. 8, 1993.

Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India,(1995) 5 SCC 403.

G.I., DoPT, O.M. No. 36033/3/2004-Estt. (Res), Mar. 9, 2004.

G.I., DoPT, O.M. No.36033/5/2004 Est (Res), Oct. 14, 2004.

The Committee of Welfare of Other Backward Classes (2018-19), 21st Report on Rationalisation Of Creamy Layer for Employment for OBCs In Services and Posts under the Control of Government Of India including URs, PSUs etc, Lok Sabha Secretariat, 2019 paras 3.6.

State of Kerala v. N.M. Thomas (1976) 2 SCC 310.

(Suppl) 3, SCC 217.

(2006) 8 SCC 212 ¶116.

(2018) 10 SCC 396.

Supp (3) SCC 217.

(2000) 1 SCC 168 ¶7.

(2008) 6 SCC 1.

(2000) 1 SCC 168 ¶27.

RAJEEV DHAVAN, RESERVED!: HOW PARLIAMENT DEBATED RESERVATIONS 1995-2007 (2008).

(2006) 8 SCC 212 ¶26.

Ratan Lal Kataria, Unstarred Q No 279 Lok Sabha (Feb. 4, 2020) http://loksabhaph.nic.in/Questions/QResult15.aspx?qref=11364&lsno=17.

G.I., DoPT, O.M., Category II-C of the Schedule, Sept. 9, 1993.

G.I., DoPT O.M., VI(a) of Category VI of the Schedule, Sept. 8, 1993.

G.I., DoPT O.M., Sept. 13, 2017.

REPORT OF THE EXPERT COMMITTEE FOR SPECIFYING THE CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFICATION OF SOCIALLY ADVANCED PERSONS AMONG THE SOCIALLY AND EDUCATIONALLY BACKWARD CLASSES (1993).

Jitendra Singh, Unstarred Q No 3592 Lok Sabha (Jan. 2, 2019) http://loksabhaph.nic.in/Questions/QResult15.aspx?qref=77241&lsno=16.

G.I., DoPT O.M. No. 36033/1/2013-Estt. (Res), Sept. 9, 2017.

The Committee of Welfare of Other Backward Classes (2018-19).

G.I., DoPT O.M. No. 36012/22/93-Estt. (SCT), Sept. 8, 1993.

G.I., DoPT O.M. No. 41034/5/2014-Estt. (Res.) Vol. IV-Part, Oct. 6, 2017.

G.I., DoPT O.M. No. 41034/5/2014-Estt. (Res.) Vol. IV-Part, Oct. 6, 2017.

G.I., DoPT O.M. No. 36012/22/93-Estt. (SCT), Sept. 8, 1993.

G.I., DoPT O.M. No. 36033/5/2004-Estt (Res), Oct. 4, 2004.

Ketan & Ors v. Union of India & Ors., 2018 DHC 238; 2018 (2) SLJ 37 (DEL).

(2001) 10 SCC 625.

Ketan & Ors v. Union of India & Ors., 2018 DHC 238; 2018 (2) SLJ 37 (DEL)., paras 12, 13.

Union of India and Ors. rep. The Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training & Others v. Rohith Nathan, 2017 (7) MLJ 751; 2017 MHC 6119, Appeal in SC pending in C.A. No. 2827-2829/2018.

Ratan Lal Khataria, Unstarred Q No 279 Lok Sabha (February 4, 2020) http://loksabhaph.nic.in/Questions/QResult15.aspx?qref=11364&lsno=17.

Samta Andolan Samiti v. Union of India, W. P. No. 2/2018.

M. Nagaraj v. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 212.

State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh & Ors, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 677 ¶52.

E V Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2005) 1 SCC 394.

Ice 360, The National Survey of Indian Consumers, (2014) http://www.ice360.in/uploads/files/thenationalsurveyofindianconsumers-web.pdf.

G.I., DoPT O. M. No. 36033/1/2013, Estt. (Res), Sept. 13, 2017.

Ice 360, Household Survey on India’s Citizen Environment and Consumer

Economy, (2016), http://www.ice360.in/uploads/files/aboutice360survey2016-09december2016-web.

State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh & Ors, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 677 ¶52.

Downloads

Published

2021-01-01

How to Cite

Rodrigues, A. J. . (2021). Anomalies in Implementation of the ‘Creamy Layer’ Segment in the Realisation of Benefits under Reservation Policies in India. Christ University Law Journal, 10(1), 55-72. https://doi.org/10.12728/culj.18.3