SC has asked Karnataka govt to respond to the appeal within two weeks (AI image)

NEW DELHI: To determine whether an OBC woman candidate came within the creamy layer to be disentitled from reservation in govt employment, what should be taken into consideration – income of her husband or that of her parents? Supreme Court has agreed to examine this question.The woman, aspiring to become a judicial officer in Karnataka, belongs to the Hindu Namadhari community which is under II-A of reserved category. In April 2018, she married a man who belongs to III-B of reserved category, and has been residing separately from her parents since then. She has applied for the post of civil judge, where six posts out of 57 are reserved for candidates belonging to category II-A.After her selection, she sought verification of her caste certificate and issuance of ‘Sindhutva’ certificate based on her husband’s income. The district caste and income verification committee rejected her application saying she belonged to the creamy layer owing to the quantum of her parent’s income.Her mother had retired as a district judge from Karnataka judicial service, and her father retired as assistant conservator of forest. She contended before Karnataka HC that eligibility of a married woman should be decided on her husband’s income and not that of her parents. She said her husband’s annual income put her out of the purview of creamy layer disqualification.The state govt had argued that pension of parents should also be considered for this purpose. The HC had rejected her claim and ruled that the pension of her parents would also be considered as family income.Arguing her appeal against the HC decision, senior advocate Sanjay M Nuli told a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M Pancholi on Wednesday that the appeal raised a question of law – whether the income of the husband or the income of the parents was to be considered for determining creamy layer of a married woman candidate and, if the income of the parents was to be considered, whether the pension of the parents was to be considered as income or not?The bench issued notice to Karnataka govt and asked it to respond to the appeal within two weeks. It has permitted the appellant to file a rejoinder in a week thereafter and posted the matter for further hearing on April 6.