http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 16  

PETITIONER: ASHOKA KUMAR THAKUR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT04/09/1995

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) AHMAD SAGHIR S. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR   75            1995 SCC  (5) 403  JT 1995 (6)   390        1995 SCALE  (5)115

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T Kuldip Singh. J.      Constitutional   validity    of   the   criteria,   for determining the  ‘creamy layer’ for the purpose of exclusion from backward  classes, laid-down by the States of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh,  has been  challenged in these writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.      A Nine-Judge  Bench of  this Court  in "Mandal  case" - Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India [1992] Supp. (3) SCC 217] - authoritatively interpreted various aspects of Article 16(4) of the  Constitution of  India.   While holding that Article 16(4) aims  at group  backwardness this  Court came  to  the conclusion that  socially advanced members of backward class - ‘creamy  layer’ -  have  to  be  excluded  from  the  said ‘class’.   It was  held that the ‘class’ which remains after excluding the  ‘creamy layer’ would more appropriately serve the purpose and object of Article 16(4)      The protective  discrimination  in  the  shape  of  job reservations under  Article 16(4)  has to  be programmed  in such a  manner  that  the  most  deserving  section  of  the backward class  is benefitted.   Means-test by which ‘creamy layer’ is  excluded, ensures  such a result.  The process of identifying backward class cannot be perfected to the extent that every  member of  the said  class is  equally backward. There are bound to be disparities in the class itself.  Some of the  members of  the class  may have individually crossed the barriers of backwardness but while identifying the class they may  have come  within the  collectivity.   It is often seen that  comparatively rich  persons in the backward class are able  to move in the society without being discriminated socially.     The  members   of  the   backward  class   are differentiated   into    superior   and   inferior.      The discrimination which  was practiced  on them  by the  higher class is  in turn  practiced by  the affluent members of the backward class on the poorer members of the same class.  The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 16  

benefits of  social privileges  like  job  reservations  are mostly chewed  up by the richer or more affluent sections of the backward  class and  the poorer  and the really backward sections  among   them  keep  on  getting  poorer  and  more backward.   It is  only at  the lowest level of the backward class where  the standards  of deprivation and the extent of backwardness may  be uniform.   The  jobs are so very few in comparison to the population of the backward classes that it is difficult  to give  them adequate  representation in  the State services.    It  is,  therefore,  necessary  that  the benefit of  the reservation  must reach  the poorer  and the weakest section  of the backward class.  Economic ceiling to cut  off   the  backward   class  for  the  purpose  of  job reservations is  necessary to  benefit the needy sections of the class.   The  means-test is,  therefore,  imperative  to skim-off the affluent section of the backward class.      We may  refer to  the opinions  given  by  the  learned Judges in  ‘Mandal case’ on the question of exclusion of the ‘creamy layer’ from the backward class.      P.B. Sawant,  J. spoke  about the ‘creamy layer’ in the following words:      "The correct  criterion for  judging the      forwardness of  the forwards  among  the      backward classes  is  to  measure  their      capacity not in terms of the capacity of      others in  their class,  but in terms of      the  capacity  of  the  members  of  the      forward classes,  as stated earlier.  If      they cross  the Rubicon of backwardness,      they  should   be  taken  out  from  the      backward  classes  and  should  be  made      disentitled to  the provisions meant for      the said classes.           It  is   necessary   to   highlight      another allied  aspect of  the issue, in      this connection.   What  do we  mean  by      sufficient  capacity   to  compete  with      others?   Is it  the capacity to compete      for Class  IV or  Class  III  or  higher      class posts?    A  Class  IV  employee’s      children may develop capacity to compete      for Class  III posts  and in that sense,      he  and  his  children  may  be  forward      compared to  those in his class who have      not secured  even Class  IV posts.    It      cannot, however,  be argued that on that      account, he  has  reached  the  "creamy"      level.       If    the    adequacy    of      representation  in   the   services   as      discussed earlier, is to be evaluated in      terms  of   qualitative  and   not  mere      quantitative representation, which means      representation in  the higher  rungs  of      administration as  well, the competitive      capacity should  be  determined  on  the      basis of the capacity to compete for the      higher level  posts also.  Such capacity      will be  acquired only when the backward      sections reach those levels or at least,      near those levels."      R.M. Sahai,J. held that the exclusion of ‘creamy layer’ is a social purpose.  Any legislation or executive action to remove such  persons individually  or collectively cannot be constitutionally invalid.   The learned Judge elaborated his conclusions as under:-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 16  

    "More  backward   and  backward   is  an      illusion.  No constitutional exercise is      called for  it.   What  is  required  is      practical approach  to the problem.  The      collectivity  or   the  group   may   be      backward class  but the individuals from      that class  may have achieved the social      status    or     economic     affluence.      Disentitle    them     from     claiming      reservation.  Therefore, while reserving      posts   for    backward   classes,   the      departments  should   make  a  condition      precedent  that   every  candidate  must      disclose  the   annual  income   of  the      parents beyond  which one  could not  be      considered to  be backward.  What should      be that  limit can  be determined by the      appropriate  State.      Income   apart,      provision should  be made  that wards of      those backward  classes of  persons  who      have acheived  a  particular  status  in      society either  political or  social  or      economic or  if  their  parents  are  in      higher services  then  such  individuals      should    be    precluded    to    avoid      monopolisation of  the services reserved      for backward  classes by  a few.  Creamy      layer, thus, shall stand eliminated." <SLE>      B.P.  Jeevan   Reddy,  J.   speaking  for   the   Court enaunciated the  concept of  ’creamy layer’ in the following words:      "The very  concept of  a class denotes a      number of  persons having certain common      traits which  distinguish them  from the      others.    In  a  backward  class  under      clause  (4)   of  Article   16,  if  the      connecting   link    is    the    social      backwardness, it  should broadly  be the      same in  a iven  class.   If some of the      members are  far too  advanced  socially      (which in the context, necessarily means      economically   and,    may   also   mean      educationally)  the   connecting  thread      between them  and  the  remaining  class      snaps.   They would  be misfits  in  the      class.    After  excluding  them  alone,      would the  class be a compact class.  In      fact, such  exclusion benefits the truly      backward.   Difficulty, however,  really      lies in drawing the line - how and where      to draw  the line?   For,  while drawing      the line,  it should  be ensured that it      does not  result in taking away with one      hand what  is given  by the  other.  The      basis of  exclusion should not merely be      economic,   unless,   of   course,   the      economic advancement  is so high that it      necessarily  means  social  advancement.      Let us  illustrate the  point.  A member      of  backward  class,  say  a  member  of      carpenter caste, goes to Middle East and      works there as a carpenter.  If you take      his annual  income in  rupeees, it would      be fairly high from the Indian standard.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 16  

    Is he  to be  excluded from the Backward      Class?   Are his children in India to be      deprived  of   the  benefit  of  Article      16(4)?     Situation  may,  however,  be      different,   if   he   rises   so   high      economically  as   to  become  -  say  a      factory  owner   himself.    In  such  a      situation, his social status also rises.      He himself  would be  in a  position  to      provide employment to others.  In such a      case, his  income is merely a measure of      his social status.  Even otherwise there      are several  practical difficulties  too      in imposing  an  income  ceiling.    For      example, annual  income of Rs.36,000 may      not  count  for  much  in  a  city  like      Bombay, Delhi or Calcutta whereas it may      be a  handsome  income  in  rural  India      anywhere.   The line to be drawn must be      a realistic one.  Another question would      be, should  such a  line be  uniform for      the entire  country or  a given State or      should if  differ from  rural  to  urban      areas and  so on.   Further, income from      agriculture may  be difficult  to assess      and,   therefore,   in   the   case   of      agriculturists, the  line may have to be      drawn with   reference  to the extent of      holding.   While the  income of a person      can be  taken as a measure of his social      advancement, the  limit to be prescribed      should not  be  such  as  to  result  in      taking away  with one hand what is given      with the  other.   The income limit must      be such  as to  mean and  signify social      advancement.   At the same time, it must      be recognised  that  there  are  certain      positions, the occupants of which can be      treated as socially advanced without any      further enquiry.    For  example,  if  a      member of  a designated  backward  class      becomes a  member of  IAS or  IPS or any      other All  India Service,  his status in      society (social  status) rises; he is no      longer  socially   disadvantaged.    His      children get full opportunity to realise      their potential.   They  area in  no way      handicapped in  the race  of life.   His      salary is  also such  that he  is  above      want.   It is but logical that in such a      situation, his  children area  not given      the benefit  of  reservation.    For  by      giving them  the benefit of reservation,      other  disadvantaged   members  of  that      backward class  may be  deprived of that      benefit.   It is  then  argued  for  the      respondents that  ’one  swallow  doesn’t      make  the   summer’,  and   that  merely      because a  few members  of  a  caste  or      class  become   socially  advanced,  the      class/caste as such does not cease to be      backward.  It is pointed out that clause      (4)  of   Article  16   aims  at   group      backwardness    and    not    individual      backwardness.     While  we  agree  that

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 16  

    clause (4)  aims at  group backwardness,      we feel  that exclusion of such socially      advanced members will make the ’class’ a      truly  backward  class  and  would  more      appropriately  serve   the  purpose  and      object of  clause (4).  (this discussion      is confined  to Other  Backward  Classes      only and has no relevance in the case of      Scheduled    Tribes     and    Scheduled      Castes)....   Keeping in  mind all these      considerations, we direct the Government      of  India   to  specify   the  basis  of      exclusion -  whether  on  the  basis  of      income, extent of holding or otherwise -      of ‘creamy layer’". <SLE>      It  is  difficult  to  draw  a  line  where  a  person, belonging to the backward class, ceases to be so and becomes part of  the ‘creamy layer’.  It is not possible to lay down the  criteria   exhaustively.    This  Court  how,  however, speaking through  Jeevan Reddy,  J., dealt with the question elaborately and  has brought  home the  point succinctly  by illustrating various  stages where  a member  of a  backward class ceases  to be  backward and  starts floating  with the ‘creamy layer’.      Pursuant to  the directions  by this  Court in  ‘Mandal case’ Government  of India,  Ministry of  Personnel,  Public Grievances  and   Pensions  (Department   of  Personnel  and Training) issued  office memorandum  dated September  8,1993 providing  for   27%  reservation  for  the  Other  Backward Classes.     Para  2(c)   of  the  memorandum  excludes  the persons/sections mentioned  in column  3 of  the Schedule to the said  memorandum.  In other words, the Schedule consists of the  ‘creamy layer’.  It would be useful to reproduce the relevant paras of the said memorandum hereunder:                      "OFFICE MEMORANDUM      The  undersigned   is  directed   to  refer   to   this Department’s O.M.  No.   36012/31/90-Estt. (SCT),  dated the 13th  August,   1990  and  25th  September,  1991  regarding reservation for  Socially and Educationally Backward Classes in Civil  Posts and  Services under  the Government of India and to  say that following the Supreme Court judgment in the Indira sawhney and others Vs. Union of India and others case (Writ Petition  (Civil) No.930  of 1990)  the Government  of India  appointed   an  Expert  Committee  to  recommend  the criteria   for    exclusion   of   the   socially   advanced persons/sections from  the benefits  ; of  reservations  for Other Backward Classes in civil posts and services under the Government of india.      2.   Consequent to  the  consideration  of  the  Expert Committee’s   recommendations   this   Department’s   Office Memorandum  No.36012/31/90-Estt.     (SCT),   dated  13.8.90 referred to  in para (1) above is hereby modified to provide as follows:      (a) 27%  (twenty seven  percent) of  the  vacancies  in civil posts  and services  under the Government of India, to be filled  through direct recruitment, shall be reserved for the Other  Backward Classes.  Detailed instructions relating to the  procedure to  be followed  for enforcing reservation will be issued separately.      (b)  ..........      (c)   (i) The  aforesaid reservation shall not apply to persons/sections mentioned  in column  3 of  the Schedule to this office memorandum.      (ii) The  rule of  exclusion will  not apply to persons

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 16  

working as  artisans or  engaged in  hereditary  occupation, callings.   A list  of such  occupations, callings  will  be issued separately by the Ministry of Welfare.      (d)  ..........      (e)  ..........      3.  ..........                           SCHEDULE Description of category        To whom rule of exclusion                                will apply 1        2                         3 I.  CONSTITUTIONAL POSTS      Son(s) and daughter(s) of                               (a) President of India;                               (b) Vice President of India;                               (c) Judges of the Supreme                                    Court and of the High                                    Courts;                               (d) Chairman & Members of UPSC                                    and of the State Public                                    Service Commission; Chief                                    Election Commissioner;                                    Comptroller & Auditor                                    General of India;                               (e) persons holding Constitu-                                    tional positions of like                                    nature. II.  SERVICE CATEGORY         Son(s) and daughter(s) of A.  Group A/Class I officers     of the All india central     and State Services     (Direct Recruits).        (a) parents, both of whom area                                    Class I officers;                               (b) parents, either of whom is                                    a Class I officers;                               (c) parents, both of whom area                                    Class I officers, but one                                    of them dies or suffers                                    permanent incapacitation.                               (d) parents, either of whom is                                    a Class I officer and                                    such parent dies or                                    suffers permanent incap-                                    acitation and before such                                    death or such incapaci-                                    tation has had the                                    benefit of employment in                                    any International Organ-                                    isation like UN, IMF,                                    World Bank, etc. for a                                    period of not less than 5                                    years.                               (e) parents, both of whom area                                    class I officers die or                                    suffer permanent incapa-                                    citation and before such                                    death or such incapac-                                    itation of the both,                                    either of them has had                                    the benefit of employment                                    in any International                                    Organisation like UN,IMF,                                    World Bank, etc. for a                                    period of not less than 5                                    years.                               Provided that the rule of                               exclusion shall not apply in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 16  

                             the following cases:                               (a) Sons and daughters of                                    parents either of whom or                                    bot of whom are Class-I                                    officers and such parent-                                    (s) dies/die or suffer                                    permanent incapacitation.                               (b) A lady belonging to OBC                                    category has got married                                    to a Class-I officer, and                                    may herself like to apply                                    for a job. B.  Group B/Class II officers of the Central & State Services  (Direct Recruitment)                               Son(s) and daughter(s) of                               (a) parents both of whom are                                    Class II officers.                               (b) parents of whom only the                                    husband is a Class II                                    officer and he gets into                                    Class I at the age of 40                                    or earlier.                               (c) parents, both of whom are                                    Class II officers and one                                    of them dies or suffers                                    permanent incapacitation                                    and either one of them                                    has had the benefit of                                    employment in any Inter-                                    national Organisation                                    like UN, IMF, World Bank,                                    etc.  for a period of not                                    less than 5 years before                                    such death or permanent                                    incapacitation;                               (d) parents of whom the                                    husband is a Class I                                    officer (direct recruit                                    or pre-forty promoted)                                    and the wife is a Class                                    II officer and the wife                                    dies; or suffers perm-                                    anent incapacitation; and                               (e) parents, of whom the wife                                    is a Class I officer                                    (Direct Recruit or pre-                                    forty promoted) and the                                    husband is a Class II                                    officer and the husband                                    dies or suffers permanent                                    incapacitation Provided                                    that the rule of excl-                                    usion shall not apply in                                    the following cases:                               Sons and daughters of                               (a) Parents both of whom are                                    Class II officers and                                    both or them dies or                                    suffers permanent                                    incapacitation.                               (b) Parents, both of whom area                                    Class II officers and                                    both of them die or                                    suffer permanent incapac-

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 16  

                                  itation, even though                                    either of them has had                                    the benefit of                                    employement in any                                    International Organi-                                    sation like UN, Imf,                                    World Bank, etc.  for a                                    period of not less than 5                                    years before their death                                    or permanent incapac-                                    itation C.  Employees in Public sector     Undertakings etc.                               The  criteria enumerated in A                               & B above in this Category                               will apply mutatis mutandi to                               officers holding equivalent or                               comparable posts in PSUs,                               Banks, Insurance Organisations                               Universities, etc. and also to                               equivalent or comparable posts                               and positions under private                               employement, pending the                               evaluation of the posts on                               equivalent or comparable basis                               in these institutions, the                               criteria specified in Category                               VI below will apply to the                               officers in these                               Institutions. III.  ARMED FORCES INCLUDING PARAMILITARY FORCES (Persons holding civil posts area not included)                               Sons(s) and daughter(s) of                               parents either or both of whom                               is or are in the rank of                               Colonel and above in the Army                               and to equivalent posts in the                               Navy and the Air Force and the                               Para Military Forces.                               Provided that :-                               (i) if the wife of an Armed                                    Forces Officer is herself                                    in the Armed Forces (i.e.                                    the category under consi-                                    deration) the rule of                                    exclusion will apply only                                    when she herself has                                    reached the rank of                                    Colonel;                               (ii) the service ranks below                                    Colonel of husband and                                    wife shall not be clubbed                                    together;                               (iii) If the wife of an offic-                                    er in the Armed Forces is                                    in civil employement,                                    this will not be taken                                    into account for applying                                    the rule of exclusion                                    unless she falls in the                                    service category under                                    item No.II in which case                                    the criteria and                                    conditions enumerated

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 16  

                                  therein will apply to her                                    independently IV.  PROFESSIONAL CLASS AND THOSE ENGAGED IN TRADE AND INDUSTRY (I) Persons engaged in profession as a doctor, lawyer, chartered accountant, Income-Tax consultant, financial or management consultant, dental surgeon, engineer, architect, computer specialist, film artists and other film professional, author, playwright, sports person, sports professional, media professional or any other vocations of like status.                               Criteria specified against                               Category VI will apply:- (II) Persons engaged in trade,  business and industry.                               Criteria specified against                               Category VI will apply:                               Explanation:                               (i) Where the husband is in                                    some profession and the                                    wife is in a Class II or                                    lower grade employment,                                    the income/wealth test                                    will apply only on the                                    basis of the husband’s                                    income                               (ii) If the wife is in any                                    profession and the                                    husband is in employment                                    in a Class II or lower                                    rank post, then the                                    income/wealth criterion                                    will apply only on the                                    basis of the wife’s                                    income and the husband’s                                    income will not be                                    clubbed with it. V.  PROPERTY OWNERS      A. Agricultural holdings Son(s) and daughter(s) of                               persons belonging to a family                               (father, mother and minor                               children) which owns                               (a) only irrigated land which                               is equal to or more than 85%                               of the statutory area, or                               (b) both irrigated and                               unirrigated land, as follows:                               (i) The rule of exclusion will                               apply where the pre-condition                               exists that the irrigated area                               (having been brought to a                               single type under a common                               denominator) 40% or more of                               the statutory ceiling limit                               for irrigated land (this being                               calculated by excluding the                               unirrigated portions).  If                               this pre-condition of not less                               than 40% exists, then only the                               area of unirrigated land will

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 16  

                             be taken into account.  This                               will be done by converting the                               unirrigated land on the basis                               of the conversion formula                               existing, into the irrigated                               type.  The irrigated area so                               computed from unirrigated land                               shall be added to the actual                               area of irrigated land and if                               after such clubbing together                               the total area in terms of                               irrigated land is 80% or more                               of the statutory ceiling limit                               for irrigated land, then the                               rule of exclusion will apply                               and dis-entitlement will                               occur.                               (ii) The rule of exclusion                               will not apply if the land                               holding of a family is                               exclusively unirrigated. B.  Plantations (i) Coffee, tea, rubber, etc.                               Criteria of income/wealth                               specified in Category VI below                               will apply. (ii) Mango, citrus, apply plantations etc.                               Deemed as agricultural holding                               and hence criteria at A above                               under this Category will                               apply. C. Vacant land and/or buildings in urban areas or urban agglomorations                               Criteria specified in Category                               VI below will apply.                               Explanation:  Building may be                               used for residential,                               industrial or commercial                               purpose and the like two or                               more such purposes. VI.  INCOME/WEALTH TEST       Son(s) and daughter(s) of                               (a) Persons having gross                                    annual income of Rs. 1                                    lakh or above or                                    possessing wealth above                                    the the exemption limit                                    as prescribed in the                                    Wealth Tax Act for a                                    period of three consecu-                                    tive years.                               (b) Persons in Categories I,                                    II, III and V A who are                                    not disentitled to the                                    benefit of reservation                                    but have income from                                    other sources of wealth                                    which will bring them                                    within the income/wealth                                    criteria mentioned in (a)                                    above.                               Explanation :                               (i) Income from salaries or                                    agricultural land shall

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 16  

                                  not be clubbed;                               (ii) The income criteria in                                    terms of rupee will be                                    modified taking into                                    account the change in its                                    value every three years.                                    If the situation,                                    however, so demands, the                                    interregnum may be less. Explanation: Wherever the expression "permanent incapac- itation" occur in this schedu- le, it shall mean incapacitation which results in putting an officer out of service."      We have carefully examined the criteria for identifying the ‘creamy  layer’ laid  down by the government of India in the Schedule,  quoted above, and we are of the view that the same is  in conformity  with the law laid down by this Court in ‘Mandal  case’.   We have  no hesitation in approving the rule of  exclusion framed by the Government of India in para 2(c) read  with the Schedule of the Office Memorandum quoted above.   Learned  counsel  for  the  petitioners  have  also vehemently  commended  that  the  State  Governments  should follow the Government of India and lay down similar criteria for identifying the ‘creamy layer’.      In the  light of  the above  background, we may examine the criteria for the identification of the ‘creamy layer’ as laid down by the States of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh.      The Governor  of Bihar  promulgated Ordinance  No.5  of 1995 on  January 27,  1995 called  "the Bihar reservation of vacancies in  posts  and  services  (for  Scheduled  Castes, Scheduled Tribes  and other  Backward  Classes)  (Amendment) Ordinance, 1995.   By  the said  Ordinance Section  4 of the Bihar Act  3 of  1992  was  amended  and  after  the  second proviso, the following proviso was added:           "Provided  also   that  reservation      under clause  (d) shall not apply to the      category of  backward classes  specified      in Schedule III."           Schedule    III    is    reproduced      hereunder:                "Schedule III                [See Section 4(2)]           1.  The  son  or  daughter  of  the      President of  India, the  Vice-President      of India,  the Chief  Justice and Judges      of the Supreme Court of India, the Chief      Justice and  Judges of  the High Courts,      the Chairman  and Members  of the  Union      Public Service  Commission and the Chief      Election Commissioner;           2. The  son  or  daughter  of  such      officers who has been directly recruited      in  Class  I  Services  of  the  Central      Government or  a State  Government or an      Undertaking or  an institution  fully or      partially financed by them; and           (a) Whose  income  from  salary  is                rupees ten  thousand  or  more                per mensum, and           (b) Whose  wife or  husband, as the                case may  be, is  at  least  a                graduate, and           (c) Who or his wife or her husband,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 12 of 16  

              as the  case may  be,  owns  a                house in an urban area, and           (d) Whose mother or father has also                been  directly   recruited  to                Class I services.           Explanation.-- Class  I  means  the      pay   bracket   fixed   by   the   State      Government from  time to  time for Class      I.           3. The  son  or  daughter  of  such      person  engaged   as  doctor,  advocate,      chartered  accountant,  tax  consultant,      financial     consultant,     management      consultant,    architect     or    other      professionals, and           (a) Whose  average income  from all                sources for  three consecutive                financial years  is  not  less                than  rupees   ten  lakhs  per                annum; and           (b) Whose  wife or  husband, as the                case  may  be,  is  atleast  a                graduate; and           (c)  Whose  family  owns  immovable                property at  least  of  rupees                twenty lakhs.           4.   The son  or daughter  of  such      person engaged in trade or commerce, and      --           (a) Whose  average income  from all                sources for  three consecutive                financial years  is  not  less                than  rupees   ten  lakhs  per                annum; and           (b) Whose  wife or  husband, as the                case may  be, is  at  least  a                graduate; and           (c)  Whose  family  owns  immovable                property at  least  of  rupees                twenty lakhs.      5.     The  son   or  daughter  of  such      industrialist:-           (a) Whose  level of  investment  in                running unit  or units is more                than rupees ten crores; and           (b) Such  unit or units are engaged                in commercial  production  for                at least five years; and           (c) His  wife or  husband,  as  the                case may  be, is  at  least  a                graduate.      6.     The  son   or  daughter  of  such agricultural land-holder:-           (a) Whose  average income  from all                sources other than agriculture                for     three      consecutive                financial years  is  not  less                than  rupees   ten  lakhs  per                annum; and           (b) Whose  wife or  husband, as the                case may  be, is  at  least  a                graduate; and           (c) Who or his wife or her husband,                as the case may be, owns house                at  least   of  rupees  twenty

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 13 of 16  

              lakhs in an urban area.      7.  The son or daughter of person, other than the  persons specified  in serial 1 to 6 of this Schedule:-           (a) Whose  main source of income is                other than  animal husbandary,                fisheries,  poultry,  weaving,                craftsmanship, handicraft  and                artisanship; and           (b) Whose  average income  from all                sources for  three consecutive                financial years  is  not  less                than  rupees   ten  lakhs  per                annum; and           (c) Whose  wife or  husband, as the                case may  be, is  at  least  a                graduate; and           (d)  Whose  family  owns  immovable                property at  least  of  rupees                twenty lakhs/      8.   If a person included in serial 1 to           7 of this  Schedule performs inter-           castes  marriage  with  a  backward           class   person   other   than   the           categories under  serial 1  to 7 of           this  Schedule,   his/her  son   or           daughter shall not be excluded.      Note.--I.   The level  of income and the           value of property shall be modified           taking into  account the  variation           in  the  money  value  every  three           years  or   less  period,   as  the           situation may demand.           II.   An  affidavit  filed  by  the           father  or   the  mother   of   the           candidate,  or  in  case  of  their           death, by  the  candidate  himself,           shall be  deemed to  be decisive in           respect   of   income,   value   of           property      and       educational           qualification."      So far  as the  State of Uttar Pradesh is concerned the categories sought  to be  excluded from the backward classes (creamy layer)  are  mentioned  in  Schedule  II  read  with Section  3(b)   of  the   Uttar  Pradesh   Public   Services Reservation of  Scheduled Castes  and Scheduled  tribes  and other backward  classes Act,  1994.  The said categories are as under:-      "Categories of Persons excluded     Criteria for                                          exclusion      1.  sons and daughters of      (a) IAS, IFS,IPS Indian          Forest Service other          central service (direct          or promotee)                                    (i) Income from salary of                                    such member of service is                                    10,000/- or above per                                    mensum.      (b) U.P. Civil Service, U.P.          Police Service State          Service.  (direct recruit).                                    (ii) Spouse is at least                                    graduate.                                    (iii) He or his spouse

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 14 of 16  

                                  owns a house in urban                                    area.      (c) Group A.Class I officers          of any Deptt. or Ministry          of Govt. of India or          Educational, Research or          other institutions (no.1          included in above (a)).      (d) Group A/Class-I officer of          any Deptt. or Institution          of State Govt. (No.1 included          in (b) above.      (e) An officer of defence forces          or Para Military forces not         below rank of colonel or equivalent.      2.  SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF --      persons engaged in profession as      a doctor, surgeon, engineers,      lawyer, architect, Chartered      Accountant, media & information      professional, management and      other consultant film artist &      other film professional, running      educational institution or      coaching institute or engaged      in the business as a share broker      or in entertainment business                               i) his average income from all                               sources should not be less                               than Rs.10 lakhs per year for                               3 consecutive financial years                               ii) Spouse at least a                               graduate.                               iii) His family property                               (immovable) should be worth                               Rs.20 lakh.      3.  Sons and daughters of Businessman.                               i) Provided whose average                               income for 3 consecutive                               financial years is not less                               than Rs.10 lakh per annum.                               ii) Spouse at least a                               graduate.                               iii) immovable family property                               worth at least 20 lakhs.      4.  Sons and Daughters of Industrialist.                               i) whose level of investment                               in running units is over Rs.10                               crore and such units are                               engaged in production for at                               least 5 years                               ii) spouse at least a                               graduate.      5.  Sons and Daughters of      a person whose holdings      is within limit fixed      under the U.P. Imposition      of Ceiling on Land Holdings      Act 1960.                               i) has an income of Rs.10                               lakhs in a year from sources                               other than agriculture.                               ii) His spouse at least a                               graduate.      6.  Sons and Daughters of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 15 of 16  

    any others person not      mentioned in afore ment-      ioned categories.                               i) Whose income from all                               sources for 3 consecutive                               financial years is not less                               than Rs.10 lakhs per annum.                               ii) Spouse at least a                               graduate.                               iii) Immovable family property                               worth at least Rs.20 lakhs."      This Court has categorically held in ‘Mandal case’ that a person,  belonging to a backward class, who becomes member of IAS,  IPS or  any other  All India  Service, his children cannot avail  the benefit  of reservation.   The  States  of Bihar and  Uttar Pradesh  have added further conditions such as salary  of rupees  ten thousand  or more  per mensum, the wife or  husband to  be graduate  and one  of them  owning a house in  an urban  area. a  So far as the professionals are concerned, an income of Rs.10 lakhs per annum has been fixed as the  criterion.   It is further provided that the wife or husband is  at least  graduate and the family owns immovable property of  the value  of at  least  rupees  twenty  lakhs. Similarly, the  criteria regarding  traders, industrialists, agriculturists and  others is  wholly arbitrary  apart  from being contrary  to the guidelines laid down by this Court in ‘Mandal case’.      Multiple conditions  have  been  provided  in  all  the categories.   The ‘spouse’  to be  a  graduate  and  holding property in  urban area,  are  the  conditions  attached  to almost every  category.  These conditions have no nexus with the object  sought to be achieved.  Since the conditions are not severable  the two  criterias as  a  whole  have  to  be struck-down.      This  Court,   in  ‘Mandal   case’  has   clearly   and authoritatively laid  down  that  the  affluent  part  of  a backward class called ‘creamy layer’ has to be excluded from the said  class and the benefit of Article 16(4) can only be given to  the "class"  which remains  after the exclusion of the ‘creamy  layer’.  The backward class under Article 16(4) means the  class which  has no  element of ‘creamy layer’ in it.  It is mandatory under Article 16(4) - as interpreted by this Court - that the State must identify the ‘creamy layer’ in a backward class and thereafter by excluding the ‘creamy- layer’ extent  the benefit  of reservation  to  the  ‘class’ which remains  after such  exclusion.   This Court  has laid down,  clear   and  easy   to  follow,  guidelines  for  the identification of  ‘creamy layer’.   The States of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh  have acted  wholly  arbitrary  and  in  utter violation of  the law  laid down  by this  Court in  ‘Mandal case’.   It is  difficult to  accept that in India where the per capita  national income  is Rs.6929  (1993-94), a person who is a member of the IAS and a professional who is earning less  than   Rs.10  lakhs   per  annum   is   socially   and educationally backward.    We  are  of  the  view  that  the criteria laid  down by the States of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh for identifying  the ‘creamy  layer’ on  the face  of it  is arbitrary and has to be rejected.      We, therefore, hold that the above quoted criteria, for identification of ‘creamy-layer’, laid down by the States of Bihar and  Uttar Pradesh  is  violative  of  Article  16(4), wholly arbitrary - violative of Article 14 - and against the law laid-down by this Court in ‘Mandal case’.      We allow  the writ petitions and quash (except clause 1 of Schedule III) the Bihar reservation of vacancies in posts

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 16 of 16  

and services  (for scheduled  castes, scheduled  tribes  and other backward classes) (Amendment) Ordinance 1995 (also the Act if  ordinance has  been converted  into Act).   We  also quash Schedule  II read  with  Section  3(b)  of  the  Uttar Pradesh Public  Services Reservation  of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled tribes and Other Backward Classes Act, 1994.      We further  direct that  for the  academic year 1995-96 the States  of Uttar  Pradesh and  Bihar  shall  follow  the criteria laid  down by  the Government  of India, reproduced above, in  the memorandum  dated September 8. 1993.  It will be open to the two States to lay down fresh criteria for the subsequent years in accordance with law.  No costs.      Mr.  Venugopal,   learned  counsel  appearing  for  the petitioners, stated  that there are various other law-points in these  writ petitions which were not raised and he sought liberty to  raise the  same in  appropriate proceedings,  if necessary.  We order accordingly.