Saturday, October 20, 2018
Follow us on
Niyalya se

PB&HR HC justifies counting of income from all sources for BC quota

September 26, 2018 05:44 AM

COURTESY THE TRIBUNE SEPT 26

HC justifies counting of income from all sources for BC quota
Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, September 25

Putting to rest the controversy over determining the “creamy layer” while granting reservation in educational institutions and service, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that the salary component received by parents in government employment is required to be taken into consideration for the purpose.


The Bench of Justice Mahesh Grover and Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu also made it clear that the counting of gross income from all sources for benefit of reservation in the backward class category appeared to be absolutely justified.

The Bench asserted there was nothing wrong in taking into consideration the salary component received by a government employee for the purposes of “creamy layer”, until and unless it was interdicted by the state government in a lawful manner.
The Bench added a government employee was having a secured future. It would be “very difficult” to extend the benefit of reservation to the poor and needy persons if he was to be designated a backward citizen by employing the device of exclusion of his salary for determining the creamy layer.

“Otherwise, generation after generation, people will get the advantage and deserving candidates will be kept at bay standing in the queue”.

The ruling came on a petition by Kailash Sharma and another candidate for MBBS/BDS course in the state of Haryana. The Bench was told that the salary income of their parents was included while calculating the annual income for the purpose of “creamy layer” in view of impugned notifications dated August 17, 2016, and August 28 issued by the state.

As the salary income was more than the ceiling of Rs6 lakh, they were denied reservation under BC-A category and were treated under the general category.

The Bench added the court was conscious of the fact that government employment was most preferred in the country. “Thousands and thousands of applicants and even graduates and post-graduates” were in the queue even for Class-IV employment.

Referring to the case in hand, the Bench added that parents of both the petitioners were government employees with gross annual income of Rs8,15,712 and Rs8,96,998. The petitioners may not be termed as members of the affluent class, but they could not be described as “real sufferers of any backwardness” also. There were “really deserving cases” not having annual income of Rs6 lakh from all sources and they would be the beneficiaries of the state’s decision.

Dismissing the petition, the Bench concluded the state government has “wisely issued the impugned notifications” and skimmed off comparatively non-deserving cases taking undue benefit of reservation. Both the impugned notifications were legal and valid not requiring interference by the court

Have something to say? Post your comment