Parliamentary panel on welfare of OBCs to examine concept of creamy layer in employment for SC/STs

The Parliamentary Committee on Welfare of Other Backward Classes will also examine issues like the concept of Creamy Layer in employment for SCs and STs in central government posts and services and PSUs. This was stated by the Social Justice Ministry a day after the Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the 'creamy layer' principle, used to exclude the affluent among other backward classes (OBCs) from enjoying the fruits of reservation, can be made applicable to deny quota benefits in promotion to those affluent among the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes.

The Parliamentary Committee on Welfare of Other Backward Classes headed by Lok Sabha member Ganesh Singh is currently examining the subject "Rationalization of Creamy Layer in employment for OBCs in services and posts under the control of Government of India including Union Territories, PSUs etc."

"In this process the committee may inter-alia examine issues like the concept of Creamy Layer in employment for OBCs in posts and services under Government of India including Union Territories, PSUs etc...," a statement by the ministry said.


The committee has now sought views and suggestions from individuals, experts or organisations interested in the subject matter.

The memoranda submitted to the committee would form part of the records of the panel and would be at the disposal of the committee, the statement stated.

The apex court on Wednesday turned down the Centre's plea that overall population of SC/ST be considered for granting quota for them.

The court also referred to its another 2006 verdict of a constitution bench in which the then Chief Justice K G Balakrishnan had held that 'creamy layer' principle was "inapplicable" to SCs and STs as it was merely a principle of identification of backward class and not applied as a principle of equality.

"We do not agree with Balakrishnan, CJ's statement in Ashoka Kumar Thakur that the creamy layer principle is merely a principle of identification and not a principle of equality," the bench said.