Gwalior, October 1, 2026 (Yes Punjab News)
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has set aside orders rejecting an OBC certificate application filed by a woman solely on the basis of her father’s salary, ruling that creamy layer status cannot be determined by income alone without examining the parent’s employment category and applicable service rules.
Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke, hearing a writ petition filed by Ragini Rathore in 2023, directed the competent authority to reconsider her application afresh after taking into account the relevant government circulars, her father’s service particulars and applicable judicial precedents.
The petitioner had challenged an October 23, 2020, order of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Isagarh, which rejected her application for an Other Backward Classes (OBC) certificate. The authority had cited her father’s gross salary of Rs 16,99,282 over the preceding three years, holding that it exceeded the prescribed monetary ceiling for the creamy layer.
Her subsequent appeal was dismissed by the Additional Collector of Ashoknagar district on November 29, 2022, upholding the original decision.
Rathore argued that the authorities had applied the income criterion mechanically without examining the nature of her father’s employment or the service-category rules governing creamy layer exclusion.
According to her petition, her father was initially appointed as a Civil Judge Class-II and was promoted to Civil Judge Class-I on June 16, 2008, after attaining the age of 40. She also submitted that his only source of income was his salary and that she was unemployed and entirely dependent on her parents.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s March 11, 2026, order in Union of India and Others v. Rohith Nathan and Others, as well as the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in Smt. Sunita Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the petitioner contended that creamy layer status must be assessed by considering the parent’s post and service status, rather than applying an income ceiling in isolation.
The High Court observed that the dispute could not be resolved merely by calculating the petitioner’s father’s salary. It noted that the authorities had failed to examine the relevant government circulars, his service category, the date of his promotion and the legal principles laid down by the Supreme Court.
Consequently, the court quashed both the SDO’s rejection order and the Additional Collector’s appellate order and remanded the matter to the competent authority for fresh consideration.
The authority has been directed to examine the applicable circulars, the father’s service particulars, the nature of his income and binding judicial precedents before passing a reasoned order, preferably within six weeks. The petitioner must also be given an opportunity to be heard.
The High Court clarified that it had not expressed any final opinion on Rathore’s eligibility for an OBC certificate, leaving the question of her entitlement to be decided by the competent authority after reassessing the case.
FOLLOW NOW
