New Delhi: The Supreme Court has said that parents’ income cannot be the sole criterion for excluding a candidate from the OBC quota on the basis of being part of the ‘creamy layer’, stressing that the status and category of parents’ jobs should be considered, along with the income/assets test as an additional criterion for exclusion. Currently, the income limit to determine the ‘creamy layer’ is Rs 8 lakh per annum.The court’s judgment will have a major impact on the children of PSU and private sector employees as for them income was taken as the sole determining factor to decide on ‘creamy layer’ status, whereas in the case of children of government employees, their job category is the deciding factor. A bench of Justices PS Narasimha and R Mahadevan said that children of Group A and B government employees are barred from availing the benefits of OBC reservation due to their job status, but children of Group C and Group D employees are eligible to get the benefit of OBC reservation due to promotion and time loss, even if their income level exceeds the limit.The court rejected the Centre’s contention that it insisted on the income/asset test criteria and accepted the plea of ​​the aggrieved children of PSU employees, who had fought the case through their lawyer Shashank Ratnu for over a decade.An office memorandum issued by the Center in 1993 stated that the same principle would be applied to employees of public sector undertakings, banks, insurance organizations, universities and similar bodies holding equivalent or comparable posts. But “equality of positions” has not been carried out as contemplated in the OM, and a clarification letter was issued by the Government in 2004, making the income/asset test the sole criterion for PSU and private sector employees.The Supreme Court said that placing excessive emphasis on the 2004 letter, regardless of the status or category of service of the parents, would defeat the structural framework of exclusion envisaged under the 1993 OM.There cannot be double standards for children of government employees: Supreme CourtIt is also clear from a wide reading of the 1993 Office Memorandum along with the explanatory letter that salary income alone cannot be the sole criterion to decide whether a candidate falls in the creamy layer or not. Along with the position, the category of post to which the parents of the candidate belong is also required. Exclusions under Categories I to III of the Schedule are status-based rather than being entirely income-based, reflecting the policy understanding that advancement within the government service hierarchy reflects social progress independent of fluctuations in pay levels. The status of a candidate, whether he falls in the creamy layer of OBC or the non-creamy layer, cannot be decided on the basis of income alone,” Justice Mahadevan, who wrote the judgment, said. “Thus, determination of the creamy layer status solely on the basis of income group, without reference to the categories of posts and position parameters mentioned in the 1993 OM, is clearly untenable in law.”Highlighting that there cannot be different standards for children of government employees and others, the court said this would amount to discrimination which cannot be permitted.“Adopting an interpretation that disadvantages a section of the same backward class without rational justification would amount to treating similar people unequally and would thus become antithetical to equality… Keeping in mind the specific facts of the present cases, the logic adopted by the HC that treating similar employees of private entities and PSUs differently from government employees and their wards, while deciding their entitlement to reservation, would amount to hostile discrimination, certainly inspires the confidence of this court,” it said. Said.