“Why Should Children Of IAS Officers Get Reservation?”: Supreme Court Questions Reservation Benefits For Children Of IAS Officers

In Raghavendra Fakeerappa Chandranavar v. Department of Backward Classes Welfare, the Supreme Court raised important questions about the continuation of OBC reservation benefits for children of financially and socially advanced families. The observations came during the hearing of a plea challenging a Karnataka High Court judgement on creamy layer exclusion.

A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan orally observed that once families attain economic and educational advancement through reservation benefits, there should be a discussion on whether the next generation should continue receiving the same benefits. Justice Nagarathna remarked, “If both parents are IAS officers why should they have reservations?”

The Court noted that economic empowerment often results in social mobility as well. Justice Nagarathna observed that when parents are highly educated, hold senior government posts and earn substantial incomes, the purpose behind reservation may require reconsideration in such situations.

The matter relates to a candidate from the Kuruba community in Karnataka, classified under Category II(A) among backward classes. He had secured selection as an Assistant Engineer in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited under the reserved category. However, the District Caste and Income Verification Committee denied him a caste validity certificate after treating him as part of the creamy layer.

Authorities found that the candidate’s family income was nearly ₹19.48 lakh annually. Both parents were government employees, and their income exceeded the prescribed creamy layer limit under Karnataka’s policy.

Advocate Shashank Ratnoo, appearing for the petitioner, argued that salary income should not be the deciding factor for creamy layer determination in the case of government servants. He submitted that creamy layer exclusion depends mainly on the status of the parents, such as whether they belong to Group A or Group B services.

He further argued that if salary alone became the basis, even lower-ranking government employees like clerks, peons and drivers could lose reservation benefits. According to him, salary and agricultural income should not be counted while determining creamy layer status.

Justice Nagarathna, however, repeatedly questioned the logic behind extending reservation benefits to children of families that had already achieved considerable social and economic progress. She stated that “there has to be some balance” between social backwardness and advancement achieved through reservation benefits.

The petitioner relied on a Karnataka government clarification stating that salary and allowances of state government employees should not be considered while determining creamy layer status. It was also argued that treating all income alike would blur the distinction between OBC reservation and EWS reservation.

The Supreme Court ultimately issued notice in the matter. The plea challenges a Karnataka High Court Division Bench judgement which had reversed an earlier Single Judge ruling in favour of the candidate.

The Division Bench held that the Central Government Office Memorandum dated September 8, 1993, excluding salary income from creamy layer assessment, applies only to Union Government reservations and not to Karnataka’s reservation policy. Based on Karnataka’s rules, the High Court concluded that the candidate fell within the creamy layer.