'If both parents are IAS Officers, why reservation for their children?': Supreme Court
Justice B V Nagarathna cited the example of children of IAS officers, questioning why reservation benefits should continue where both parents are IAS officers and well established in government service.
by Zee Media Bureau · Zee NewsThe Supreme Court on Friday questioned whether children from families that have attained educational and economic advancement through reservation should continue receiving OBC quota benefits, noting that such advancement also leads to social mobility.
“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. That is a matter we have to concern. Also, what is the use then? You are giving 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 BV Nagarathna said, reported Live Law.
A bench comprising Justice B V Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan made the observations while hearing a plea challenging a Karnataka High Court ruling that upheld the petitioner’s exclusion from reservation benefits under the creamy layer criteria, as both of the petitioner’s parents are state government employees.
The case pertains to a candidate from the Kuruba community, listed under Category II(A) among Karnataka’s backward classes, who was selected for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited under the reserved quota. However, the District Caste and Income Verification Committee denied him a caste validity certificate, holding that he belonged to the creamy layer.
Also Read | Will 50% Reservation Limit Be Scrapped After Caste Census? Explained
According to Live Law, the candidate’s family income was assessed at nearly Rs 19.48 lakh per annum. Authorities noted that both of his parents were government employees and that their combined earnings exceeded the prescribed creamy layer limit.
During the hearing, Justice B V Nagarathna repeatedly raised concerns over the continued extension of reservation benefits to families that had already achieved social and economic advancement. She observed that economic and educational empowerment also leads to an improvement in social status, and questioned the basis for granting reservation benefits to children whose parents are educated, employed in well-paying jobs, and earn substantial incomes.
She further observed, “There has to be some balance. Socially and educationally backward, yes, but once the parents have attend 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”, she said.
Justice B V Nagarathna cited the example of children of IAS officers, questioning why reservation benefits should continue where both parents are IAS officers and well established in government service. She also noted that in the present case, the petitioner’s father was drawing a basic monthly salary of Rs 53,900, while the mother was earning a basic pay of Rs 52,650 per month.
Ultimately, the Court issued notice on the plea.
The petition stems from a Karnataka High Court Division Bench judgment that overturned a Single Judge’s ruling in favour of the candidate. The Single Judge had held that the salary income of the candidate’s parents should be excluded while determining creamy layer status and had directed the authorities to issue a caste validity certificate.
However, the Division Bench reversed the decision, ruling that the Central Government’s Office Memorandum dated September 8, 1993, which excludes salary income from creamy layer determination, applies 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 prescribed limit and that he therefore fell within the creamy layer category.