UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS v. ROHITH NATHAN AND ANOTHER, ETC.

2026 INSC 1201 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO(S). 3313 – 3315 OF 2026 [@ Diary No. 51879 of 2026] in C.A. Nos. 2827 – 2829 of 2018

UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS …. APPLICANTS VERSUS ROHITH NATHAN AND ANOTHER, ETC. … RESPONDENTS

WITH MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO(S). 3316 – 3318 OF 2026 [@ Diary No. 51897 of 2026]

ORDER

1. Delay condoned in both applications.

2. The present Miscellaneous Applications have been filed by the applicants

/ appellants, namely, the Union of India and others, seeking the following reliefs:

M.A. Diary No.51879 of 2026

(i) Permit the applicants to proceed with the finalisation of service

allocation to candidates recommended by the Union Public Service

Signature Not Verified Commission (UPSC) in the Civil Services Examination, 2025 Digitally signed by Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2026.11.06

(CSE-2025) on the basis of the principles for determination of OBC 14:50:14 IST Reason:

creamy-layer status applied by the applicants prior to 11.03.2026; and

(ii) Pass such other order(s) or direction(s) as this Court may deem fit and

proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of

justice.

M.A. Diary No.51897 of 2026

(i) Clarify/direct that the judgment dated 11.03.2026 shall not apply

retrospectively so as to reopen completed selections, appointments,

service allocations, cadre allocations, seniority positions or admissions

made in accordance with the laws, rules, instructions and eligibility

conditions prevailing at the relevant time;

(ii) Permit the applicants a reasonable period of two years to undertake the

exercise of establishing equivalence of posts, after consultation with the

concerned stakeholders including all States and Union Territories, and

to formulate an appropriate and uniform policy/mechanism for

determining OBC creamy-layer status in respect of categories for which

such equivalence had not yet been established;

(iii) Direct that candidates participating in examination/recruitment

processes which were already underway as on 11.03.2026 may, for the

relevant examination/recruitment cycle, be governed by the eligibility

conditions and declarations applicable on the relevant cut-off date;

(iv) Clarify/direct that the judgement dated 11.03.2026 shall not be applied

retrospectively so as to unsettle completed admissions to higher

educational institutions, completed academic sessions, degrees already

conferred or settled rights of students; and

(v) Pass such further or other order(s)/direction(s) as this Court may deem

fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to briefly set out the

background facts and the judgment dated 11.03.2026 passed by this Court in Civil

Appeal Nos. 2827 – 2829 of 2018, etc.

3.1. The respondent candidates had successfully cleared the Civil Services

Examinations. However, since the equivalence of posts in Public Sector

Undertakings, Banks, and other organisations vis-à-vis Government posts had not

been formally determined, the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT)

applied the Income/Wealth Test under Category VI of O.M. No.36012/22/93-Estt

(SCT) dated 08.09.1993 (1993 OM) read with clarificatory letter No.

36033/5/2004-Estt. (Res.) dated 14.10.2004 (2004 Letter). Upon assessing the

income of the respondents’ parents, who were employed in Public Sector

Undertakings (PSUs) for the preceding three financial years, the DoPT classified

them as falling within the creamy layer of the Other Backward Classes (OBC)

thereby rendering them ineligible for the benefits of reservation under the OBC

(Non-Creamy Layer) category. Consequently, their cases were not considered for

service allocation under the reserved category.

3.2. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent candidates approached the Central

Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and obtained orders in their favour. The writ

petitions filed by the appellants challenging the said orders were dismissed by the

High Courts of Madras, Delhi and Kerala.

3.3. Challenging the aforesaid decisions, the applicants/appellants preferred

Civil Appeal Nos.2827-2829 of 2018 etc., before this Court. In addition, several

candidates who had successfully cleared the Civil Services Examinations in

different years, and whose applications, representations or proceedings were

pending consideration before the DoPT, the CAT, or the High Courts, sought

permission to intervene in the proceedings and prayed for appropriate reliefs.

3.4. By judgment dated 11.03.2026, this Court dismissed the civil appeals and

directed the applicants/appellants to consider the claims of the respondent

candidates and the intervenors in accordance with the principles laid down in the

judgment, and to implement the same within six months.

4. Mr. Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General, appearing for the applicants

/ appellants submitted that retrospective implementation of the judgment dated

11.03.2026 would have far-reaching consequences for recruitment, service and

cadre allocation, seniority, admissions to Higher Educational Institutions.

Referring to CSE-2025, he pointed out that the final result had been declared on

06.03.2026, five days prior to the judgment, on the basis of the prevailing

interpretation of the 1993 OM, as clarified by the 2004 Letter. Retrospective

application would unsettle the completed selection process, prejudice candidates

who had relied upon the existing instructions and disrupt service and cadre

allocations, including those made in respect of earlier Civil Services Examination

batches. He further highlighted the potential impact on more than 6.69 lakh

reserved vacancies, including 3.70 lakh OBC vacancies, filled over the preceding

ten years across various Government departments and public institutions as well

as the consequential effects on seniority, pay, promotional prospects and the

Foundation Course for CSE-2025 candidates.

4.1. The learned Solicitor General further submitted that the judgment had

triggered additional litigation, including claims by similarly situated candidates

who were not parties to the Civil Appeals, thereby necessitating a wider

examination of its consequences. Relying upon the doctrine of prospective

overruling recognised by this Court, inter alia, in Indra Sawhney v. Union of

India [1992 Supp (3) SCC 217], he contended that this Court could mould the

relief under Articles 32, 141 and 142 of the Constitution to protect concluded

transactions and bona fide reliance on the prevailing legal position. Accordingly,

he prayed that the judgment dated 11.03.2026 be directed to operate prospectively

and that the Union of India be granted two years to undertake the exercise of

establishing equivalence of posts and formulating a comprehensive policy, so as

to avoid administrative disruption while balancing the competing rights.

5. Mr. Prateek K Chadha, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No. 1

(Rohith Nathan), submitted that the present Miscellaneous Applications sought

to deprive eligible OBC candidates of reservation benefits while favouring the

children of serving Government Officers. He contended that the selection process

had been made subject to the outcome of the proceedings by order dated

28.11.2016 in WP(C) No.914 of 2016, and that the Union could not rely on

delays, jurisdictional objections or administrative difficulties, particularly when

it had repeatedly sought adjournments and failed to justify the impugned policy

despite assurances before this Court and Parliament. He further submitted that the

issues raised had already been considered in the judgment dated 11.03.2026 and

that the applications were an attempt to circumvent review jurisdiction and seek

a rehearing. He contended that the Union’s failure to undertake the equivalence

exercise despite longstanding assurances, could not prejudice the respondent

candidates and accordingly sought dismissal of the applications.

6. Mr. P. Wilson, learned senior counsel referred to the case of Malavekar

Rohit Tukaram, a Category IIC candidate whose parents’ salary income exceeded

Rs.8 lakhs, yet who was recommended for CSE-2025 on the basis of a valid OBC-

NCL certificate and provisionally appointed to the Indian Forest Service. He

submitted that this demonstrated inconsistent application of the criteria and

warranted implementation of the judgment without dilution.

7. Ms. Karina Chawla, learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.3

(G. Babu) submitted that the Union had failed to explain the 166-day delay in

filing the applications shortly before the expiry of the six-month implementation

period, despite having assured the CAT, Principal Bench, New Delhi, on

19.08.2026 in C.P.No.263 of 2026 that the judgment would be implemented in

letter and spirit for 56 candidates. She pointed out that service allocations had

subsequently been made without including salary income for similarly situated

candidates and contended that the judgment required uniform application of the

1993 OM read with the 2004 Letter. She submitted that the inconsistent treatment

of Category IIC candidates and Government employees could be avoided by

implementing the UPSC recommended list dated 06.03.2026 in full, particularly

when results in NEET, CDS, AIIMS, JEE, SSC and IFoS had been declared

without similar difficulties. On maintainability, she contended that Miscellaneous

Applications in disposed-of proceedings could be entertained only where

subsequent events rendered implementation impossible, relying on Jaipur Vidyut

Nitran Nigam Ltd v. Adani Power Rajasthan Ltd. [2024 SCC OnLine SC 313],

Ajay Kumar Jain v. State of UP [2024 SCC OnLine SC 3677], and this Court’s

Circular dated 03.01.2025.

8. Mr. Sanjay Hegde, learned senior counsel appearing for the applicants /

intervenors (Yashvardhan Singh and others) submitted that the intervenors,

having cleared all three stages of CSE-2025 and holding valid OBC-NCL

certificate, figured in the UPSC recommended list dated 06.03.2026. He

contended that their certificates could not be reopened by including salary income

contrary to the principles laid down in the judgment dated 11.03.2026.

Implementation of the judgment would not necessitate creation of supernumerary

posts, whereas reopening the list would cause uncertainty and further litigation.

He further submitted that non-parties to the Civil Appeals could not be prejudiced

without an opportunity of hearing and that their individual claims and remedies

must be independently considered in accordance with law.

9. Miss. Gauraan, learned counsel appearing for the applicant / intervenor

(M. Sindhuja) submitted that the intervenor, who secured All India Rank 458 in

CSE-2022, was denied service allocation on creamy-layer grounds. The CAT by

order dated 13.05.2026 in OA No.3695 of 2025, allowed her application relying

on the judgment in Rohith Nathan and the 1993 OM, which order the Union had

neither complied with nor challenged. It was contended that the present

applications indirectly sought to defeat the benefit of the CAT’s final order and

that the Union, if aggrieved, ought to have availed itself of the remedies available

in law before the appropriate forum.

10. We have considered the extensive submissions advanced on behalf of all

parties and carefully perused the material placed on record, including the

rejoinders and the accompanying documents filed on behalf of the

applicant/Union of India.

11. At the outset, it is necessary to clarify the scope of the present

Miscellaneous Applications. The issue is confined to delineating the ambit of the

operative directions issued in the judgment dated 11.03.2026 and clarifying the

temporal application of the principle laid down therein. We entertain them for the

said limited purpose. These applications do not warrant adjudication of any fresh

cause of action or reconsideration of claims already decided. It is made clear that

the interpretation of the 1993 OM and the 2004 Letter, the rejection of mechanical

exclusion based on salary income and the relief granted to the successful litigants

are not open to reconsideration in these proceedings. Any submission seeking a

different interpretation of the salary provisions cannot, therefore, be entertained.

11.1. A distinction must be drawn between the adjudication of individual claims

and the application of the legal principle declared while deciding those claims.

The original proceedings concerned identified candidates whose claims had been

adjudicated by the respective Tribunals, High Courts and this Court. The

adjudication was inter partes, and the operative relief was confined to the parties

to the said lis, including the intervenors. The direction concerning the creation of

supernumerary posts must necessarily be understood in that context.

11.2. This Court was also conscious of the interdependent nature of recruitment

and promotion arrangements, involving eligibility, reservation rosters,

comparative merit, service allocation, cadre strength and seniority. Reopening a

concluded selected process after a substantial interval may prejudice numerous

other persons and disrupt successive stages of service administration. The

retrospective application of the principle may also unsettle promotions already

granted and disturb the seniority of employees. The need to protect completed

arrangements and facilitate an orderly transition must, therefore, inform the

determination of the temporal consequences of the judgment.

11.3. The judgment cannot be construed as directing a general revision of service

allocations or seniority across successive recruitment years, nor does it confer

individual relief upon persons who were not parties to the original proceedings.

The binding force of the legal principle enunciated by this Court under Article

141 of the Constitution is, however, distinct from the scope of the operative relief.

The distinction between the binding legal principle and the relief granted to the

parties must, therefore, be borne in mind while examining the scope and temporal

operation of the directions contained in the judgment.

12. Having delineated the scope of the present Miscellaneous Applications and

the distinction between the binding legal principle and the operative relief, it is

necessary to examine the observations and directions contained in Paragraphs 42,

43 and 44 of the judgment dated 11.03.2026 passed in CA Nos.2827-2829 of

2018, etc., which form the subject matter of the present applications. For ease of

reference, the said paragraphs are reproduced below:

“42. As regards the intervention applications, we find that several candidates who were successful in the Civil Services Examination of different years sought permission to intervene the present proceedings to advance their respective contentions. They submit, in substance, contentions similar to those urged by the respondent candidates in the civil appeals, asserting that they belong to the Non- Creamy Layer of the Other Backward Classes. It is their case that their applications, representations, or proceedings are presently pending consideration before the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), the High Courts or the Central Administrative Tribunal, and that any decision rendered in the present batch of matters would have a direct bearing upon their entitlement. Accordingly, they seek appropriate orders in the present proceedings.

43. At this juncture, it is to be noted that supernumerary posts have already been assured by the DoPT and this position stands recorded in the 21st Report of the Parliamentary Committee on the Welfare of Other Backward Classes. In view thereof, we find no difficulty in directing the appellants to create such supernumerary posts, as required, to accommodate the candidates who satisfy the non-creamy layer criteria as clarified in the present judgment, subject to their otherwise fulfilling eligibility conditions.

44. To sum up (i) All the Civil Appeals are dismissed.

(ii) The appellants are directed to consider the claims of the respondent candidates and intervenors in accordance with the principles laid down in this judgment, and to implement the same within a period of six months from the date of this judgment. (iii) There shall be no order as to costs. (iv) Pending application(s) including Intervention Applications, stand disposed of accordingly.”

13. A perusal of the judgement in its entirety reveals that this Court determined

the rights of the respondent candidates in the Civil Appeals primarily with regard

to their entitlement to posts under the OBC-reserved category, on an

interpretation of the applicable 1993 OM and the subsequent 2004 Letter. We find

no observation or direction requiring the Union Government to revisit

appointments already made, revise the seniority of any person, or undertake any

selection, appointment or service allocation exercise afresh. The judgment was

rendered on the facts of the cases before this Court and determined the rights of

the parties to the lis. Although the interpretation laid down therein constitutes a

binding precedent under Article 141 of the Constitution and attracts the doctrine

of stare decisis, no direction was issued for the retrospective reopening of

concluded selections, appointments or service allocations so as to affect the rights

of persons, who were not parties to the proceedings.

14. Paragraphs 42 and 43 of the judgment dated 11.03.2026 must be read

together. Paragraph 42 deals with the intervention applications filed by candidates

whose claims were pending consideration before the competent forums or

authorities, while Paragraph 43 provides for the creation of supernumerary posts,

as required, to accommodate those candidates who satisfy the non-creamy layer

criteria clarified in the judgment, subject to their fulfilling the other eligibility

conditions. Read in this context, the reference to “candidates” in Paragraph 43

means the intervenors referred to in Paragraph 42. Paragraph 44, which

summaries the operative directions, must be read in conjunction with the

preceding paragraphs and in the context of the issues decided and the parties

before this Court.

15. The present Miscellaneous Applications appear to proceed on the

erroneous assumption that the benefit of the judgment operates retrospectively,

with effect from the dates of selection and appointment of the respondent

candidates, and that the Union Government is required to undertake a

corresponding exercise within six months. Such an interpretation is not borne out

by the judgment. This Court did not direct the retrospective revision or

reconsideration of selections, appointments, seniority or service allocations

already concluded. The six-month period stipulated in Paragraph 44(ii) was

intended for implementation of the directions in relation to the respondent

candidates and intervenors and cannot be construed as requiring a general

exercise. Consequently, no further time need be granted for undertaking an

exercise that was not directed by this Court in the first place.

16. It is also well settled that miscellaneous applications cannot be employed

as a means to seek a rehearing of matters already decided or to reopen issues

concluded by the judgment. Such applications may be entertained only for the

correction of clerical or arithmetical errors or the resolution of genuine difficulties

in implementing the directions issued by the Court. In the present case, the

applications have been entertained only to clarify the scope and temporal

operation of the directions already issued. They cannot, however, be employed as

a ruse to secure reconsideration of the merits of the judgment under the guise of

seeking clarification.

17. In view of the aforesaid, issuing a further direction prescribing a time limit

for establishing equivalence of posts, etc., as sought by the applicants/appellants

in the present Miscellaneous Applications, does not arise.

18. Therefore, this Court is inclined to dispose of the present Miscellaneous

Applications in the following terms:

(i) The judgment dated 11.03.2026 determines the rights of the parties

before this Court. It holds that the respondent candidates fall within the

non-creamy layer of the OBC category and are entitled to the benefit of

reservation together with consequential placement and allotment of

posts in the selection processes in which they participated.

(ii) The grant of such benefit shall not, by itself, operate to the detriment of

the seniority of any other person or entail the reopening of selections or

appointments already concluded. In this regard, it is relevant to note that

by its letter dated 20.12.2016, the DoPT had clarified that the selections

pursuant to the Civil Services Examination, 2016 were subject to the

outcome of the appeals pending before this Court.

(iii) Paragraphs 42 and 43 of the judgment concern the intervenors, while

Paragraph 44 sets out the operative directions disposing of the Civil

Appeals. These directions are to be construed only in the context of the

parties and applications dealt with in the judgment.

(iv) In Paragraph 43, this Court had taken note of the assurance given by the

DoPT regarding the creation of supernumerary posts, which is also

recorded in the 21st Report of the Parliamentary Committee on the

Welfare of Other Backward Classes. The Government may,

accordingly, accommodate the parties before this Court who otherwise

fulfil the requisite eligibility conditions.

(v) The ratio laid down in the judgment shall not, by itself, furnish a ground

for reopening selections or appointments already concluded prior to the

judgment dated 11.03.2026. The claims of persons asserting that they

are similarly placed, whose cases are pending before any Court,

Tribunal or other competent forum or authority, may be considered on

their own merits by the concerned adjudicating body or authority. This

Court expresses no opinion on the merits of such claims, save to

reiterate that the interpretation of the 1993 OM and the 2004 Letter laid

down in the judgment may be taken into consideration while

adjudicating such claims in accordance with law.

(vi) All selections, appointments and allotments against roster points made

subsequent to the judgment dated 11.03.2026, insofar as they concern

the implementation of reservation and the exclusion of the creamy layer,

shall be governed by the 1993 OM, as interpreted by this Court in the

said judgment.

(vii) The Government remains at liberty to formulate its policy concerning

reservation and the creamy layer criteria, in accordance with the

Constitution and the principles laid down by this Court.

(viii) This Court is not inclined to prescribe any timeline for establishing

equivalence between posts or consulting stakeholders in the

formulation of the creamy layer policy, as these matters fall within the

domain of the executive and the legislature.

(ix) With respect to M.A. Diary No.51879 of 2026, although the result of

the Civil Services Examination, 2025 was declared on 06.03.2026, the

allocation of services has not yet been finalised. Since the process of

allocation remains pending and there is no convincing or reasonable

justification for deferring the implementation of the judgment dated

11.03.2026, the creamy layer principle, as interpreted in the said

judgment, shall govern the allocation of services to OBC candidates

selected through the Civil Services Examination, 2025.

19. Accordingly, these Miscellaneous Applications stand disposed of. The time

for compliance with the judgment is extended by a period of two months from

today.

20. Pending application(s), including intervention applications shall stand

disposed of.

………………………………………………… J. [PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA]

….…………………………………………… J. [R. MAHADEVAN] NEW DELHI; NOVEMBER 06, 2026.