Author: Advocate Amit Kumar Sharma, Supreme Court of India
Introduction
The question of whether children of officers of the Central Armed Police Forces (CAPFs) fall within the “creamy layer” of the Other Backward Classes (OBC) category is not merely a matter of administrative categorization. It delves into the core of India’s constitutional vision of substantive equality. This issue holds significant importance for candidates appearing in the UPSC Civil Services Examination and other competitive recruitments where OBC reservation is applicable.
Administrative Clarifications
As per the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT) Office Memorandum No. 36012/22/93-Estt.(SCT) dated September 8, 1993, and subsequent clarifying memoranda, children of Group A/Class I officers of the All India Services (including officers of the Armed Forces and Central Paramilitary Forces (CAPFs) holding the rank of Colonel or equivalent and above) are to be excluded from OBC reservation, as they are considered part of the “creamy layer”. This exclusion stems from the presumption that such posts confer not only economic advancement but also social elevation, thereby disqualifying their children from benefits intended for the socially and educationally backward. Accordingly, administrative instructions have consistently deemed CAPF ranks of Commandant and above (which are equivalent to Colonel in the Army) to fall within this exclusion. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has further clarified on multiple occasions that children of CAPF officers holding the rank of Commandant and above, being equivalent to Group A officers, are ineligible for the non-creamy layer OBC quota.
Constitutional Jurisprudence
This administrative stance is not arbitrary but deeply rooted in constitutional jurisprudence. In Indra Sawhney v. Union of India [(1992 Supp (3) SCC 217)], the Supreme Court unequivocally held that the objective of Article 16(4) is to provide reservation only to those sections of OBCs who have historically suffered disadvantage and backwardness, not the socially advanced. The concept of the “creamy layer” thus evolved to exclude the socially and economically advanced among the OBCs, ensuring that the reservation benefits reach the truly deserving. The Court mandated that the exclusion of the creamy layer must be based not merely on income, but also on status, the post held, and societal influence.
Furthermore, in Ashoka Kumar Thakur v. Union of India [(2008) 6 SCC 1)], a Constitution Bench upheld the validity of reservations for OBCs in educational institutions under the 93rd Constitutional Amendment. Critically, the Court simultaneously emphasized the absolute necessity of applying the “creamy layer” exclusion. It clarified that “socially advanced persons” among the OBCs, including those holding high posts in public employment or possessing significant social capital, must be kept outside the ambit of reservation to preserve its constitutional purpose. Justice Bhandari, in his concurring opinion, observed that “reservation is meant for the weakest of the weak and not for those who have already crossed the Rubicon of social and economic advancement”. The Court warned against ‘reverse discrimination’, a scenario where reservation could inadvertently benefit the already privileged, leaving the truly disadvantaged behind. This decision reaffirmed and deepened the principle first established in Indra Sawhney, making it clear that creamy layer exclusion is not optional, but a constitutional obligation wherever OBC reservation is implemented, be it in public employment or higher education. Therefore, the parent’s rank, the prestige of the post held, and access to networks of influence must all be considered in determining eligibility.
Policy Rationale
The policy rationale underpinning this exclusion is to ensure that the advantages of affirmative action are not usurped by those who have already attained economic affluence and social mobility. Children of high-ranking CAPF officers (such as Commandants, Deputy Inspectors General (DIGs), and above) are presumed to have been raised in environments affording privilege, influence, and access. The creamy layer exclusion thus prevents reservation benefits from being disproportionately cornered by a select elite within the backward classes, thereby upholding the larger constitutional goal of equitable distribution.
Caste Certificate: No Automatic Eligibility
It is crucial to understand that this principle applies irrespective of the caste certificate held. Even if an individual belongs to a notified OBC caste, they will not be eligible for OBC reservation if the parental income or status exceeds the creamy layer threshold. In military and paramilitary services, where pay bands may not fully reflect status, rank (not just salary) becomes a critical determinant.
Conclusion
In conclusion, both the Government and the Judiciary have consistently maintained the stance that children of high-ranking CAPF officers are to be excluded from OBC reservation, being placed within the creamy layer. The law does not operate mechanically based on caste alone; rather, it seeks to balance historic disadvantage with current privilege, ensuring that social justice genuinely serves as a means of real and inclusive empowerment, rather than merely achieving statistical parity.