By specifying new income and wealth criteria to identify people in the “creamy layer” among the backward classes (BC) in order to exclude them from the reserve in public employment and educational institutions, the government of the ‘Haryana ordered that children whose parents have an annual income of ??6 lakh and more or who had more wealth ??1 crore for the last three consecutive years will not be allowed for booking in British Columbia. Income from all sources will be clubbed to arrive at the gross annual income.
The new criteria were notified on the instruction of the Supreme Court which, on August 24, canceled a notification from the Haryana government of August 17, 2016 regarding the identification of the creamy layer of backward classes solely on the basis of economic criteria. .
The new criteria largely align with recommendations made by the National Backward Class Commission in its 2015 review of the income criteria for the creamy layer.
The 2016 notification also sub-classified the backward classes, which was deemed arbitrary and contrary to article 14 of the Constitution by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. In addition, the setting of income criteria such as ??6 lakh to identify and exclude the âcreamy layerâ of ML, the 2016 notification divided the remaining BCs eligible for booking into two groups based on their annual.
The first group consisted of people with a gross annual income of ??3 lakh and the other whose income was between ??3-6 lakh.
The new creamy layer
The Haryana Social Welfare Department for Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes, in a November 17 notification, also excluded the sons and daughters of Class 1 and 2 officers from central, state and Indian reserve services. of British Columbia.
Children of officers occupying equivalent or comparable positions in public sector companies, banks, insurance organizations, universities were also excluded from the BC quota.
As per the notification, children of armed forces personnel, including paramilitary forces with one or both parents at the rank of major or above, and children whose family owns more land than the allowable limit by the Land Cap Act were also excluded from British Columbia’s quota.
Children of constitutional figures or persons holding constitutional positions, including deputies and deputies, were excluded from the scope of the reservation.
Sub-classification BC held arbitrary by the HC
The August 2016 “creamy layer” notification, deemed arbitrary by the High Court, had subclassed CBs by stating that children of people with gross annual income up to ??3 lakh will benefit in the first place from the reservation of services and admission to educational institutions.
The quota left out will go to that category of British Columbia citizens who earn more than ??3 lakh but up to ??6 lakh per year. The sections of the backward winning classes above ??6 lakh per year should be considered a âcreamy layerâ according to the 2016 notification.
While ordering the state government to issue a new creamy layer test within three months, the Supreme Court said that a notification issued by the Haryana government on June 7, 1995 was consistent with the SC ruling in the Indira Sawhney case.
The 1995 notification excluded from the benefit of the reserve certain persons who occupied constitutional functions and those who were employed by the State and the Center in higher functions.
In addition, the social promotion of other categories has been taken into account with the aim of including these categories in the âcreamy layerâ.
The Supreme Court said that, according to the August 2016 notification, the identification of the âcreamy layerâ among the backward classes was strangely restricted based on economic criteria alone.