The Supreme Court has clarified that the "creamy layer" status for OBC cannot be determined merely by the parents' income. The decision re‑affirms the primacy of the 1993 Office Memorandum and rejects the 2004 clarificatory letter’s income‑only approach. Key Developments Bench of Justice P.S. Narasimha and Justice R. Mahadevan granted relief to UPSC candidates wrongly placed in the creamy layer. The Court held that salary income cannot be the sole criterion; the status and category of the parent’s post is essential. The 2004 clarificatory letter was deemed a procedural clarification, not a substantive amendment to the 1993 policy. DoPT was directed to re‑assess affected candidates within six months and create super‑numerary posts where necessary. The judgment warned against discriminatory treatment of children of PSU/private employees vis‑à‑vis government employees, invoking Articles 14 and 16 . Important Facts Background: Candidates cleared the Civil Services Examination and claimed OBC non‑creamy‑layer reservation. DoPT, relying on a 2004 letter, classified them as creamy layer based on parental salary, especially for parents employed in PSUs, banks, or private firms. 1993 Office Memorandum: Excludes children of Group A officers and equivalent positions in PSUs, banks, etc., from creamy‑layer status. It introduces a residual “Income/Wealth Test” (Category VI) that applies only when status‑based criteria are inapplicable, and explicitly excludes salary and agricultural income from this test. 2004 Clarificatory Letter: Suggested using salary income where equivalence of PSU/private posts with government posts was not yet determined. The Court found this interpretation inconsistent wi