Decode Civils CAShorts
Current affairs Open app
PolityGS2Prelims

OBC creamy layer: Centre awaits SC directions to allocate 958 selectees

By CAShorts DeskPublished Sources: The Indian Express (PTI); Supreme Court of India; DoPT Office Memoranda; PIB (Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment); Constitution of India; Gazette of India

OBC creamy layer: Centre awaits SC directions to allocate 958 selectees
Illustration (AI-generated)

The 958 candidates recommended by the UPSC in the Civil Services Examination 2025 still await service allocation. The Department of Personnel and Training has sought the Supreme Court's directions to allot services on the OBC creamy-layer status determined before the Court's 11 March 2026 judgment, sources said. That ruling held that parental income alone cannot decide such status.

Syllabus: GS2 · Constitution; Prelims · Polity & Governance; GS2 · Constitutional Bodies

Why this matters for UPSC

GS2 polity: reservation under Article 16(4) and the National Commission for Backward Classes. Prelims can ask Indra Sawhney's creamy-layer rule, the 1993 Office Memorandum's categories and Article 338B; Mains, whether status or income should define the OBC creamy layer.

Why it matters

For the 958 selectees, the wait delays their foundation course and the start of their careers in services such as the IAS, IPS or Indian Foreign Service. For an OBC candidate, the rule decides whether a parent's job in a private firm or a PSU counts against the candidate. If it does, the candidate competes outside the reserved quota, where the same rank may bring a different service. If a new test reached back to earlier batches, seniority that officers have held for years could be unsettled. The larger question is how to keep reservation for the truly backward without shutting out families who are only modestly better off.

Prelims pointers

  • Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), nine judges: reservations under Article 16(4) should not exceed 50%, save in extraordinary situations such as far-flung, remote areas.
  • Indra Sawhney: Article 16(4) is not an exception to Article 16(1) but an instance of the classification inherent in it; economic criteria alone cannot identify a backward class.
  • 1993 OM: 27% of direct-recruitment vacancies in central civil posts and services are reserved for OBCs; OBCs selected on general merit do not count against it.
  • 1993 OM Schedule, six categories: constitutional posts; service category; armed forces (Colonel and above); professional class and trade; property owners; income/wealth test.
  • Income/wealth limit: Rs 1 lakh (1993), Rs 2.5 lakh (2004), Rs 4.5 lakh (2008), Rs 6 lakh (2013), Rs 8 lakh (2017); unchanged by 2022, per the Government.
  • Creamy-layer status rests on the parents' status or income, never the candidate's own or the spouse's (DoPT clarification, 14 October 2004).
  • Article 338B (102nd Amendment Act, 2018): the National Commission for Backward Classes has a Chairperson, a Vice-Chairperson and three other Members, appointed by the President.
  • 105th Amendment Act, 2021: each State or Union territory may by law keep its own list of socially and educationally backward classes, which may differ from the Central List.

Practise a UPSC-style question

With reference to the exclusion of the 'creamy layer' from reservation for the Other Backward Classes, consider the following statements:

1. The requirement was laid down by a seven-judge Bench of the Supreme Court in 1992.

2. The DoPT's Office Memorandum of 1993 set the criteria for excluding the creamy layer from OBC reservation in central posts.

3. The Supreme Court held that a backward class of citizens cannot be identified on economic criteria alone.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

  1. (a) 1 and 2 only
  2. (b) 2 and 3 only
  3. (c) 1 and 3 only
  4. (d) 1, 2 and 3
Show the answer

Answer: (b) 2 and 3 only

Answer: (b) 2 and 3 only. Indra Sawhney (1992) was decided by nine judges; the 1993 OM and the rule on economic criteria are correct.

Statement 1: incorrect. Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), which required the creamy layer to be excluded, was decided by a nine-judge Bench, not seven.

Statement 2: correct. After the judgment, the DoPT's Office Memorandum of 8 September 1993 set the exclusion criteria in a six-category Schedule, on an Expert Committee's advice.

Statement 3: correct. Indra Sawhney held that a backward class of citizens cannot be identified only and exclusively with reference to economic criteria.

Eliminate: Statement 1 is surest: Indra Sawhney was heard by nine judges. Out: (a), (c), (d).

Trap: Near-miss figure. Seven judges sounds right for a landmark constitutional case, but the Indra Sawhney Bench had nine.

Remember: Indra Sawhney (1992), nine judges: creamy layer out, a 50% ceiling, no identification on economics alone.

More from the 26 October 2026 edition

All stories of 26 October 2026

More Polity current affairs