NEW DELHI: To determine whether an OBC woman candidate is among those not entitled to retain a government job, what factors should be considered – her husband’s income or her parents’ income? Supreme Court Agreed to study this issue.The woman, who aspires to become a judicial officer in Karnataka, belongs to the Hindu Namadhari community, which falls under reserved category II-A. In April 2018, she got married to a man belonging to reserved category III-B and has been separated from her parents since then. She applied for the civil judge post and 6 out of 57 posts are reserved for category II-A candidates.After selection, she asked for verification of her caste certificate and issuance of a ‘Sindhutva’ certificate based on her husband’s income. The District Caste and Income Verification Committee rejected her application saying she belonged to the creamier class due to the larger amount of her parents’ income.Her mother retired as a district judge in the Karnataka judicial department and her father retired as an assistant forest conservator. She argued before the Karnataka High Court that the eligibility of a married woman should be decided on the basis of her husband’s income and not that of her parents. She said her husband’s annual income kept her out of the creamy layer’s disqualification range.The state government is of the view that parents’ pensions should also be considered for this purpose. The HC rejected her claim and ruled that her parents’ pension would also be considered as family income.Senior advocate Sanjay M Nuli on Wednesday told a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi Justice Pancholi, who appealed against the HC’s decision, said the appeal raised a question of law – whether the income of the husband or the income of the parents should be considered while determining the creamy layer of a married woman candidate, and if the income of the parents is to be considered, should the pension of the parents be considered as income?The bench issued notice to the Karnataka government asking it to respond to the appeal within two weeks. It allowed the appellant within a week to file his reply and referred the matter to April 6 for a further hearing.
