Determination For OBC Creamy Layer Cannot Be Based On Income Of Candidate's Husband Working As Civil Judge Class-I: Madhya Pradesh High Court
It was alleged her ₹30,000 salary with her husband’s ₹1,00,000 income exceeded the ₹8 lakh annual limit.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench by strictly interpreting State guidelines prescribing criteria for exclusion of candidate belonging to creamy layer, has held that a female candidate does not lose her entitlement to OBC reservation simply because her husband earns a high salary, provided he does not hold a designated Class-I governmental position. The Court found that the husband of Respondent No. 3, though titled "Civil Judge Class-I", actually occupies a Class-II post.
The Court noted that the "creamy layer" status is not determined solely by financial status but is essentially a social status test. Consequently, the personal earnings of a candidate or the salary of a spouse in a Class-II or lower position cannot be clubbed with parental income to disqualify an applicant under the prevailing Government of India and State Government circulars.
Justice Ashish Shroti observed, “The challenge to the candidature of respondent no.3 in this case is only based upon income of her husband. The same is not relevant unless the husband is a Class-I Officer. As discussed above, the husband of respondent no.3 is working as Civil Judge Class-I which is a Class-II post. Thus, the objection raised by petitioner is not acceptable”.
Senior Advocate M.P.S. Raghuvanshi appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Sohit Mishra appeared for the respondent.
The factual matrix involves a challenge to the appointment of Respondent No. 3 as an Assistant Professor (Law). The Petitioner and Respondent No. 3 both applied under the OBC (Women) category, where Respondent No. 3 secured 290 marks, meeting the cutoff, while the petitioner secured 288 marks and was placed in the waiting list.
The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 3 belonged to the "creamy layer" because her husband, a Civil Judge Class-I (2008 batch), earned approximately Rs. 1 lakh per month and the respondent herself earned Rs. 30,000 as Guest Faculty, bringing the total family income above the Rs. 8 lakh threshold.
Pursuant to which, the Petitioner filed the writ petition in 2021 to set aside the appointment of Respondent No. 3. During the pendency of the litigation, the petitioner was also appointed to the post on June 20, 2023. Consequently, the legal dispute narrowed to the issue of seniority; if Respondent No. 3 were found ineligible, the petitioner claimed her seniority should be backdated to March 22, 2021.
The Court relied on landmark precedents such as Indra Sawhney v. Union of India 1992 Supp (3) SCC 217 and Surinder Singh v. Punjab SEB (2014)15 SCC 767.
It observed that per the General Administration Department circular dated August 25, 2012, only parental income is relevant for the creamy layer test.
“Even though the objection with regard to income of her parents has not been raised, the respondent no.3 has clarified in return that her father was a Class-III officer and has retired as such in the year 2023. Her mother was also housewife. Thus, in either case, the respondent no.3 does not fall in any of the excluded category of creamy layer. She was thus entitled to and has rightly given the benefit of her status as an OBC candidate”, the Bench further noted.
The Court dismissed the writ petition, finding no illegality in the appointment of Respondent No. 3. The Bench held that the respondent was rightly granted the benefit of OBC status as she did not fall into any excluded category.
Cause Title: Sunita Yadav v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Others [Neutral Citation: 2026:MPHC-GWL:11101]
Appearances:
Petitioner: M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, Senior Advocate and Manish Gurjar, Advocate.
Respondents: Sohit Mishra, Shashank Indapurkar, Amit Lahoti, Advocates.