Case Law Details
Jenesh Sathees Mathew Vs District Collector (Madras High Court)
The petitioner challenged the order dated 27.05.2026 rejecting his request for an OBC-Non Creamy Layer (OBC-NCL) certificate and sought a direction to issue the certificate based on his appeal dated 21.05.2026.
The petitioner contended that he had been issued an OBC certificate for the year 2024-2025, but the present application was rejected on the ground that his father’s salary exceeded the prescribed income limit. He relied upon the Supreme Court’s judgment in Civil Appeal Nos. 2827-2829 of 2018 dated 11.03.2026, which clarified that, under the Income/Wealth Test contained in Category VI of the 1993 Office Memorandum, income from salaries and agricultural land should not be clubbed with income from other sources while determining exclusion from OBC reservation benefits.
The respondents submitted that the petitioner had failed to enclose his father’s income certificate while applying for the certificate. According to the status report, the petitioner’s father’s income exceeded Rs.87 lakhs and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to the OBC certificate.
The Madras High Court observed that the petitioner had not submitted the income certificate and other supporting documents along with the application, which led the authorities to conclude that the income exceeded the prescribed limit. The Court permitted the petitioner to submit a fresh application along with the income certificate, income tax particulars, and a copy of the Supreme Court judgment. It directed the third respondent to reconsider the application on its merits, taking into account the income certificate and the Supreme Court guidelines, and to pass appropriate orders on or before 10.06.2026. The writ petition was accordingly disposed of without costs.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
This writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the third respondent dated 27.05.2026 and to direct the respondents herein to issue OBC-NCL certificate to the petitioner pursuant to his appeal dated 21.05.2026.
2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that for the year 2024-2025, OBC certificate has been issued to the petitioner. Having issued the certificate in the previous year, the respondents have now rejected the present application on the ground that the salary of the petitioner’s father exceeds the prescribed income limit. He has also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.2827-2829 of 2018 dated 11.03.2026 and the relevant portion is extracted hereunder:-
21.15. However, the 1993 OM expressly provides that pending evaluation of equivalence or comparability of posts vis-à-vis Government services, the Income / Wealth Test under Category VI alone would apply. This is significant. The specific criteria for disentitlement under II C, namely direct recruitment to a post equivalent to Class I / Group A, or promotion to such post before the age of 40, remain inoperative until equivalence is determined. Thus, in the absence of such evaluation, the entire category II C cannot be automatically deprived of reservation; exclusion, if any, can only be under Category VI. Category VI, which embodies the Income / Wealth Test operates as a residual filter. Explanation (i) under this category specifically provides that income from salaries and income from agricultural land shall not be clubbed with income from other sources for the purpose of computing gross annual income. Explanation (ii) pertains to the periodic revision of the prescribed income limit. The plain language of these explanations makes it clear that salary income and agricultural income are consciously kept outside the common pool while determining exclusion under the Income / Wealth Test.
3. The learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents has filed a status report and would submit that the income certificate of the petitioner’s father has not been annexed while applying or the certificate. The petitioner’s father’s income is above Rs.87 Lakhs and therefore, he is not entitled for OBC certificate and hence, the application of the petitioner came to be rejected.
4. We have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the records carefully.
5. The status report filed by the respondents indicates that the petitioner had not enclosed the income certificate along with the application. In the absence of the income certificate and other supporting documents, the authorities appear to have arrived at the conclusion that the income exceeds the prescribed limit.
6. In view of the above, the petitioner is permitted to submit a fresh application along with the income certificate, income tax particulars and a copy of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.2827 to 2829 of 2018, dated 11.03.2026, tomorrow, ie., on 09.06.2026. On receipt of such application and supporting documents, the third respondent shall consider the same on its own merits, taking into account the income certificate and the guidelines by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos.2827-2829 of dated 11.03.2026, and pass appropriate orders on or before 10.06.2026.
7. With the above directions, this writ petition is disposed No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Author Bio
