New Delhi: The Supreme Court has declined to give the Union Government two years to establish equivalence of posts for determining the OBC creamy layer, and has held that its 11 March 2026 judgment on creamy-layer status does not reopen concluded selections, appointments or seniority, but that the allocation of services for Civil Services Examination 2025, which is still pending, must follow the creamy-layer principle laid down in the judgment.
A Bench of Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan passed the order on 6 November 2026 (2026 INSC 1201) and extended the time for compliance by two months.
The applications were filed by the Union of India and others in Civil Appeal Nos. 2827-2829 of 2018 (Union of India v. Rohith Nathan and another, etc.). By its judgment of 11.03.2026, the Court had dismissed the Union’s appeals, in which candidates who cleared the Civil Services Examination had been classified as creamy layer by the DoPT on the basis of their parents’ salary income from Public Sector Undertakings, since the equivalence of such posts with Government posts had not been determined. The Union was directed to consider the claims of the respondents and intervenors in accordance with the judgment within six months.
The Union sought permission to finalise service allocation for CSE-2025 on the basis of the principles applied before 11.03.2026, a clarification that the judgment is not retrospective, and two years to establish equivalence of posts and frame a uniform policy. The Solicitor General, Mr. Tushar Mehta, said that the result of CSE-2025 had been declared on 06.03.2026, five days before the judgment, and that retrospective application would unsettle completed selections and allocations, with an impact on more than 6.69 lakh reserved vacancies, including 3.70 lakh OBC vacancies, filled over ten years. He relied on prospective overruling.
The respondent candidates opposed the applications, saying that the selection was subject to the outcome of the proceedings, that the Union could not rely on administrative difficulty after assurances before the Court and Parliament, and that the applications sought a rehearing. Counsel also pointed to a 166-day delay in filing, and to inconsistent treatment of similarly placed candidates. The intervenors argued that they were in the UPSC list of 06.03.2026 with valid OBC-NCL certificates, and that non-parties cannot be prejudiced without being heard.
The Court said that it was entertaining the applications only to clarify the scope and temporal operation of the directions, and that the interpretation of the 1993 Office Memorandum and the 2004 Letter, the rejection of mechanical exclusion based on salary income and the relief granted to the successful litigants were not open to reconsideration. It held that the adjudication was inter partes and the relief confined to the parties and intervenors.
The Court found no direction in the March judgment requiring the Government to revisit appointments already made, revise anyone’s seniority or redo any selection or service allocation. It said that, although the interpretation laid down is binding under Article 141, the judgment did not direct retrospective reopening of concluded selections. Paragraphs 42 and 43, on the intervenors and supernumerary posts, were to be read together, and the six-month period applied only to the respondents and intervenors. It added that miscellaneous applications cannot be used as “a ruse to secure reconsideration” of a judgment’s merits.
The Court disposed of the applications on these terms: the March judgment holds that the respondent candidates fall within the non-creamy layer and are entitled to reservation benefits with consequential placement; the benefit shall not by itself operate to the detriment of anyone’s seniority or entail reopening concluded selections; and the ratio will not by itself ground reopening of selections concluded before 11.03.2026. Claims by persons who say they are similarly placed and whose cases are pending before other forums may be considered on their own merits, taking the judgment’s interpretation into account, and the Court expressed no opinion on them.
The Court held that all selections, appointments and allotments against roster points made after 11.03.2026 are to be governed by the 1993 OM as interpreted in the judgment. It noted that the Government may accommodate the parties before the Court through supernumerary posts, and that it remains at liberty to formulate its policy on reservation and the creamy layer, but that it was not inclined to prescribe a timeline for establishing equivalence of posts, which is a matter for the executive and the legislature.
On CSE-2025, the Court observed that, although the result was declared on 06.03.2026, service allocation has not yet been finalised, and there was no convincing or reasonable justification for deferring the judgment. It held that the creamy-layer principle as interpreted in the judgment shall govern the allocation of services to OBC candidates selected through CSE-2025.
Appearances: For the Applicants (Union of India and Others): Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General. For the Respondents and Intervenors: Mr. Prateek K. Chadha (for Respondent No. 1), Mr. P. Wilson, Senior Advocate, Ms. Karina Chawla (for Respondent No. 3), Mr. Sanjay Hegde, Senior Advocate, and Ms. Gauraan.
Case Title: Union of India and Others v. Rohith Nathan and Another, etc., Miscellaneous Application Nos. 3313-3315 of 2026 (Diary No. 51879 of 2026), with Miscellaneous Application Nos. 3316-3318 of 2026, in Civil Appeal Nos. 2827-2829 of 2018
