1 hr ago
Madhya Pradesh High Court Reconsiders OBC Creamy Layer Application
Ragini Rathore asked for an OBC certificate.
Officials refused because her father's salary was above the prescribed limit.
She said officials also needed to examine her father's job position and service history.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court agreed that salary alone was not enough to decide the issue.
It cancelled the earlier rejection orders.
The case must now be reviewed by the competent authority.
Rathore must be given a chance to explain her case.
The court did not decide whether she will ultimately receive the certificate.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside orders denying Ragini Rathore an OBC certificate.
Authorities rejected her application because her father's three-year gross salary exceeded the creamy-layer ceiling.
Rathore argued that salary alone could not determine creamy-layer status without examining her father's post and service history.
The court said the authorities had not considered relevant circulars, employment status, promotion date, income nature, and judicial precedents.
The case was remanded for fresh consideration, with a reasoned order preferably due within six weeks.
- Who
- Ragini Rathore, the Madhya Pradesh High Court, and authorities including the Sub-Divisional Officer and Additional Collector.
- What
- The court set aside the rejection of Rathore's OBC certificate application and ordered fresh consideration.
- Where
- The case was heard by the Gwalior Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court and concerned authorities in Isagarh and Ashoknagar district.
- When
- The High Court issued its order on September 29, 2026; the original rejection was dated October 23, 2020, and the appeal decision November 29, 2022.
- Why
- The court found that creamy-layer status could not be assessed solely from salary income and that relevant service details, circulars, and precedents had not been examined.
Applicant's Position
Authorities' Initial Position
Use of salary income
Applicant's Position
Ragini Rathore argued that salary income alone could not determine creamy-layer status and that the parent's post, service category, and applicable rules also had to be examined.
Authorities' Initial Position
The authorities rejected the application on the ground that the father's gross salary for the preceding three years exceeded the prescribed monetary ceiling.
Relevant employment details
Applicant's Position
The petitioner pointed to her father's career history, including his promotion from Civil Judge Class-II to Civil Judge Class-I after age 40, and argued that these details were legally relevant.
Authorities' Initial Position
The initial orders did not accept the certificate application after applying the income criterion; the High Court found that the service status and promotion details had not been properly examined.
Final entitlement
Applicant's Position
Rathore sought reconsideration of her eligibility for an OBC certificate.
Authorities' Initial Position
The High Court did not rule that she was entitled to the certificate, leaving that decision to the competent authority after a fresh review.
Key facts
- Petitioner
- Ragini Rathore
- Court
- Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior Bench
- Judge
- Justice Milind Ramesh Phadke
- Stated salary
- The petitioner's father's gross salary for the preceding three years was Rs 16,99,282.
- Original rejection
- The Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue), Isagarh, rejected the OBC certificate application on October 23, 2020.
- Appeal decision
- The Additional Collector, Ashoknagar district, dismissed the appeal on November 29, 2022.
- Next step
- The competent authority must reconsider the case and preferably issue a reasoned order within six weeks.
Sources
Related news
Centre Seeks Two-Year Delay in OBC Creamy-Layer Verdict
SC Issues Notice on Centre Plea Affecting 958 Candidates
Madras High Court Rejects Appearance-Based Caste Test
Madras High Court Upholds Cancellation of Retiree’s ST Certificate
Supreme Court seeks Bengal response, permits pending appointments
Supreme Court Seeks Replies Over MP Medical Scholarship Dispute
