Candidate with creamy layer income barred from OBC reservation, Karnataka High Court rules. india news

The Karnataka High Court has rejected the OBC reservation claim made by a 29-year-old job aspirant, ruling that his parents’ annual income places him in the creamy layer and hence disqualifies him from availing quota benefits. The court’s judgment has once again drawn attention to how income-based criteria can erode caste identity in the reservation system.

Candidates and Applications

The case involves Raghavendra, a resident of Annigeri taluk in Dharwad district, who had applied for the post of Assistant Electrical Engineer in Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited (KPTCL). Citing his belonging to the Kuruba community, he demanded reservation under the OBC category, specifically Category II (A), which is listed under backward classes.

His community status was not disputed. However, officials examined the economic background of his family under the state’s creamy layer guidelines, which is a mandatory step in determining eligibility for OBC reservation.

Income that led to disqualification

According to the documents submitted, the total annual income of Raghavendra’s parents is Rs 19.48 lakh. His father reportedly earns around Rs 53,900 per month, while his mother earns around Rs 52,650. Both are income tax assessees.

Under Karnataka’s 2018 creamy-layer criteria, any person whose parents’ annual income is more than Rs 8 lakh is considered part of the creamy layer and hence is not eligible for OBC reservation, irrespective of caste identity. Based on this rule, the authorities rejected his claim for quota benefits.

Court proceedings and contradictory orders

Initially, a single-judge bench of the High Court had ruled in favor of the candidate, stating that he was eligible for reservation benefits. However, the state social welfare department challenged the decision, arguing that the creamy-layer income criteria had been correctly applied and the earlier order needed to be reconsidered.

A division bench led by Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice CM Poonacha reviewed the case. After examining the income documents and the applicable policy framework, the bench overturned the earlier decision. The judges emphasized that the new comprehensive creamy layer policy adopted by Karnataka in 2018 should be implemented uniformly.

The bench held that since the income of the candidate’s parents was much more than the prescribed limit, the authorities were right in denying him OBC reservation. The division bench, while putting an end to the dispute, also rejected the appeal filed against its decision.

Why this decision matters

The decision reinforces an important principle: caste identity alone is not enough to claim OBC reservation. Income and economic status, as defined under creamy-layer rules, play a decisive role in ensuring that the benefits of reservation reach socially and economically disadvantaged groups. The creamy-layer concept was designed to prevent individuals from relatively affluent OBC families from monopolizing quota benefits for those who still face systemic backwardness.

This case also serves as a reminder for students and job aspirants applying under OBC reservation. While community certifications are required, they are only a part of the eligibility criteria. Assessment of parents’ income is equally important and can determine whether a candidate is eligible for quota benefits or not.

Implications for prospective applicants

This judgment will likely be used as a reference point in similar cases where caste eligibility is clear but income exceeds the creamy-layer limit. With incomes rising across different sectors, more applicants may find themselves falling under the exclusion zone unless the creamy-layer income limit is revised in the future.

For now, the High Court order reiterates that the creamy-layer bar is firm, and authorities must strictly adhere to it. As the debate over reservation policies continues, this decision underlines the importance of balancing social identity with economic reality in determining who should benefit from affirmative action.