Creamy layer: wealth criterion, socio-economic status will be a criterion for exclusion from the British Columbia quota

0

By specifying new income and wealth criteria to identify people from the “creamy layer” among the backward classes (BC) in order to exclude them from the scope of reservation in public employment and educational establishments , the government of Haryana has ordered that children whose parents have an annual gross income of 6 lakh and above or who possessed superior wealth 1 crore for the past three consecutive years will not be eligible for booking in BC. Income from all sources will be added together to arrive at the gross annual income.

The new criteria were notified on the instructions of the Supreme Court which on August 24 had quashed a notification from the Haryana government of August 17, 2016 regarding the identification of the creamy layer of the backward classes solely on the basis of criteria economic.

The new criteria are broadly in line with recommendations made by the National Backward Classes Commission in its 2015 Review of Income Criteria for the Creamy Layer.

The 2016 notification also made a sub-classification of backward classes which was found to be arbitrary and contrary to Article 14 of the Constitution by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. In addition, setting income criteria such as 6 lakh for identifying and excluding the “creamy layer” of British Columbia, the 2016 notification divided the remaining reservation-eligible BCs into two groups based on their annual report.

The first group included people whose gross annual income was up to 3 lakh and the other whose income was between 3-6,000,000.

The new creamy layer

The Haryana Castes and Backward Classes Welfare Department, in a November 17 notification, also excluded the sons and daughters of class 1 and 2 officers from the central, state and all services. Indians within the scope of the British Columbia reservation.

Children of agents occupying equivalent or comparable positions in public sector companies, banks, insurance organizations, universities were also excluded from the CB quota.

According to the notification, children of members of the armed forces, including paramilitary forces, of whom one or both parents hold the rank of major or above, and children whose families own land in excess of the limit permitted by the land cap law were also excluded from the scope. British Columbia quota.

Children of constitutional figures or persons holding constitutional positions, including deputies and deputies, were excluded from the scope of the reservation.

BC sub-classification deemed arbitrary by the HC

The August 2016 ‘creamy diaper’ notification, found arbitrary by the High Court, had downgraded BCs stating that children of people with a gross annual income of up to 3 lakh must first benefit from booking in services and admission into educational institutions.

The quota set aside will go to that category of British Columbia citizens who earn more than 3 lakh but up to 6 lakh per year. Sections of the backward classes gaining above 6 lakh per year will be considered as a “creamy layer” according to the 2016 notification.

While ordering the state government to issue a new creamy coat test within three months, the Supreme Court said that a notification issued by the Haryana government on June 7, 1995 was in line with the judgment SC in the Indira Sawhney case.

The 1995 notification excluded certain persons who held constitutional positions and those employed by the State and the Center in senior positions from benefiting from the reservation.

In addition, the social advancement of other categories was taken into account for the purpose of including these categories in the “creamy layer”.

The Supreme Court said that according to the August 2016 notification, the identification of the “creamy layer” among the backward classes was strangely restricted based on economic criteria alone.

Share.

Comments are closed.