While clarifying the scope of its judgment, wherein it was held that the social status of parents must also be considered in UPSC OBC claims, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed the view that the miscellaneous applications cannot be employed as a means to seek a rehearing of matters already decided or to reopen issues concluded by a judgment.

The Apex Court was considering an appeal seeking a direction to the applicants to proceed with the finalisation of service allocation to candidates recommended by the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) in the Civil Services Examination, 2025 (CSE-2025) based on the principles for determination of OBC creamy-layer status applied by the applicants before March 11, 2026.

The Division Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan held, “It is also well settled that miscellaneous applications cannot be employed as a means to seek a rehearing of matters already decided or to reopen issues concluded by the judgment. Such applications may be entertained only for the correction of clerical or arithmetical errors or the resolution of genuine difficulties in implementing the directions issued by the Court. In the present case, the applications have been entertained only to clarify the scope and temporal operation of the directions already issued. They cannot, however, be employed as a ruse to secure reconsideration of the merits of the judgment under the guise of seeking clarification.”

On March 11, 2026, the Supreme Court had held that the social status and service position of the parents must also be considered under the established guidelines for the determination of a candidate belonging to the “creamy layer” among the Civil Services Examination (India) OBC.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta represented the appellant, while Senior Advocate Basavaprabhu Patil represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The respondent candidates had successfully cleared the Civil Services Examinations. However, since the equivalence of posts in Public Sector Undertakings, Banks, and other organisations vis-à-vis Government posts had not been formally determined, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) applied the Income/Wealth Test under Category VI of O.M. No.36012/22/93-Estt (SCT) dated September 8, 1993, read with a clarificatory letter No. 36033/5/2004-Estt. (Res.) dated October 14, 2004 (2004 Letter). Upon assessing the income of the respondents’ parents, who were employed in Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) for the preceding three financial years, the DoPT classified them as falling within the creamy layer of the Other Backwards Classes.

Their cases were not considered for service allocation under the reserved category. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent candidates approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and obtained orders in their favour. The writ petitions filed by the appellants challenging the said orders were dismissed by the High Courts of Madras, Delhi and Kerala. Challenging the aforesaid decisions, the applicants/appellants preferred Civil Appeal before the Apex Court. In addition, several candidates who had successfully cleared the Civil Services Examinations in different years, and whose applications, representations or proceedings were pending consideration before the DoPT, the CAT, or the High Courts, sought permission to intervene in the proceedings and prayed for appropriate reliefs.

The Apex Court dismissed the civil appeals and directed the applicants/appellants to consider the claims of the respondent candidates and the intervenors in accordance with the principles laid down in the judgment, and to implement the same within six months. It was in these circumstances that the appeal came to be filed.

Reasoning

The Bench explained that reopening a concluded selection process after a substantial interval may prejudice numerous other persons and disrupt successive stages of service administration. “The retrospective application of the principle may also unsettle promotions already granted and disturb the seniority of employees. The need to protect completed arrangements and facilitate an orderly transition must, therefore, inform the determination of the temporal consequences of the judgment”, it added.

The Bench also stated that the distinction between the binding legal principle and the relief granted to the parties must be borne in mind while examining the scope and temporal operation of the directions contained in the judgment.

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the Apex Court did not direct the retrospective revision or reconsideration of selections, appointments, seniority or service allocations already concluded. The Bench noted that the six months stipulated in Paragraph 44(ii) was intended for implementation of the directions in relation to the respondent candidates and intervenors and couldnot be construed as requiring a general exercise. “Consequently, no further time need be granted for undertaking an exercise that was not directed by this Court in the first place”, it stated.

The Bench thus disposed of the applications by holding that the judgment dated March 11, 2026 determines the rights of the parties before the Court and holds that the respondent candidates fall within the non-creamy layer of the OBC category and are entitled to the benefit of reservation together with consequential placement and allotment of posts in the selection processes in which they participated. “The grant of such benefit shall not, by itself, operate to the detriment of the seniority of any other person or entail the reopening of selections or appointments already concluded”, it clarified.

Considering that in Paragraph 43, the Court had taken note of the assurance given by the DoPT regarding the creation of supernumerary posts, which was also recorded in the 21st Report of the Parliamentary Committee on the Welfare of Other Backwards Classes, the Bench suggested that the Government may, accordingly, accommodate the parties before this Court who otherwise fulfil the requisite eligibility conditions. “All selections, appointments and allotments against roster points made subsequent to the judgment dated 11.03.2026, insofar as they concern the implementation of reservation and the exclusion of the creamy layer, shall be governed by the 1993 OM, as interpreted by this Court in the said judgment”, it ordered.

The Bench further held, “The Government remains at liberty to formulate its policy concerning reservation and the creamy layer criteria, in accordance with the Constitution and the principles laid down by this Court.”

Dealing with another Miscellaneous Application where the result of the Civil Services Examination, 2025 was declared on March 6, 2026, and the allocation of services had not yet been finalised, the Bench ordered, “Since the process of allocation remains pending and there is no convincing or reasonable justification for deferring the implementation of the judgment dated 11.03.2026, the creamy layer principle, as interpreted in the said judgment, shall govern the allocation of services to OBC candidates selected through the Civil Services Examination, 2025.”

Cause Title: Union of India & Others v. Rohith Nathan (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 1201)

Appearance

Appellant: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, AOR Arvind Kumar Sharma, Advocates Alka Agrawal, Apoorva Kurup, Navanajay Mahapatra, Madhav Sinhal, Mayank Pandey, Sansriti Pathak, Santosh Ramdurg, Yogesh Vats, AOR Shreekant Neelappa Terdal

Respondent: Senior Advocates Basavaprabhu Patil, Sanjay Hegde, Advocate Vikram Hegde, AOR Hima Lawrence, Advocates Chinmayi Shrivastava, Trishan Dollny, Ankit Tiwari, Arijit Sukla, Ashish, Tanay Hegde, Roy Abraham, Reena Roy, Adithya Koshy Roy, Akhil Abraham Roy, AOR Saraswata Mohapatra, AOR Himinder Lal, AOR Harsh Parashar Advocate A.sirajudeen, AOR N. Visakamurthy, AOR Vardhman Kaushik, Advocates Arindam Sarin, Mayank Sharma, Dhruv Joshi, Vinay Kaushik, P. S. Vijayadharni, Nishant Gautam, AOR Varinder Kumar Sharma, Advocates Sanjay Singh Thakur, Hitesh Kumar Sharma, Vijay Prtap Singh, Akhileshwar Jha, Shreya Jha, Anupam Kumar, Manju Jetle, Advocates Vibhav Mishra, Megha Gaur, AOR Parmanand Gaur, AOR Abhikalp Pratap Singh, AOR Ashish Batra, AOR Siddhartha Jha, Advocates Anuroop Chakravarti, Advocates M.S. Vishnu Sankar, Prakhar Srivastava, Athira G. Nair, Aditya Santhosh, Advocates Dimple Nagpal, AOR M/s Lawfic

Click here to read/download Judgment


Tags: