A simmering debate has emerged in Karnataka’s medical education system as the income ceiling for the Other Backward Classes (OBC) quota continues to exclude most in-service doctors from claiming reserved postgraduate (PG) seats. While the reservation system is designed to ensure social equity, stringent income criteria—currently capped at ₹8 lakh per annum under the creamy layer rule—have made the majority of government-employed doctors ineligible. This contradiction has sparked outrage among medical professionals and policy analysts, who argue that the existing norms fail to consider the unique economic realities of government service and the spirit of social justice the quota was meant to uphold.
Background: Understanding the OBC Quota and Income Ceiling
The OBC reservation policy, rooted in the Mandal Commission’s recommendations, seeks to uplift socially and educationally disadvantaged groups through access to education and employment. However, the “creamy layer” provision was introduced to ensure that economically advanced individuals within these groups do not monopolise benefits. Under current regulations, any family with a gross annual income above ₹8 lakh is excluded from availing OBC reservation benefits.
While this rule works for most sectors, experts point out that it becomes problematic in the case of in-service government doctors, whose official salaries automatically exceed the income ceiling even at entry-level positions. The unintended outcome is that doctors belonging to OBC categories are technically disqualified from claiming the very seats reserved for their social group in PG medical admissions, despite being socially eligible.
The Current Conflict in Karnataka
In Karnataka, the issue came to the fore during recent postgraduate medical admissions conducted by the Karnataka Examinations Authority (KEA). Several in-service doctors—particularly those working in rural health centres—found themselves barred from applying under the OBC quota. The ₹8 lakh limit effectively excluded nearly all doctors who draw salaries under the government pay scale, regardless of where they serve.
Medical associations, including the Karnataka Government Medical Officers’ Association (KGMOA), have raised strong objections. They argue that the system unfairly penalises government doctors, while private candidates from similar social backgrounds continue to avail reservation benefits. The result, they claim, is systemic discrimination against those who have chosen public service over private practice.
Voices from the Field: In-Service Doctors Speak Out
Many in-service doctors describe the policy as both unfair and demotivating. Dr. Priya Hegde, a government physician from Shivamogga, says, “Our gross salary may cross ₹8 lakh, but we don’t have the same economic comfort as corporate doctors. Rural postings come with hardships and limited facilities. It’s unjust to treat us as ‘creamy layer’ merely based on pay slips.”
Another doctor, Dr. Manjunath N, who has served in a taluk hospital for seven years, echoes similar frustration. “I belong to a socially backward OBC group. My parents are still agricultural workers. But because I earn a government salary, I lose my quota eligibility. How is that social justice?” he asks.
The sense of betrayal runs deep among many who joined the government health sector with hopes of advancing through the in-service PG route. They say the system now effectively blocks career growth, creating disillusionment among young doctors who serve in remote and challenging regions.
Government’s Stance and Policy Justification
The Department of Backward Classes Welfare and the Ministry of Health have defended the existing rules, citing Supreme Court directives that uphold the ₹8 lakh ceiling as a benchmark for identifying the creamy layer. Officials argue that altering this limit specifically for one profession could create inconsistencies across sectors. “The income cap applies equally to all professions under OBC reservation. Exemptions cannot be made without policy revision at the national level,” said a senior official.
The state government, however, acknowledges the discontent brewing among medical staff. Karnataka’s Health Minister recently confirmed that the issue had been referred to the Law Department for legal opinion, suggesting that the state may consider recommending a special relaxation for in-service doctors to the Centre. Yet, no formal notification or policy amendment has been issued so far.
The Legal and Constitutional Dimensions
The controversy touches upon deeper constitutional questions regarding economic versus social criteria for determining backwardness. The Supreme Court, in several landmark judgments, including Indra Sawhney vs Union of India (1992), upheld the concept of the creamy layer to prevent elite capture within OBC groups. However, it also emphasised that social and educational backwardness cannot be overridden by mere economic metrics.
Legal experts argue that in-service doctors represent a special category within the OBC framework. “Government salaries are not indicators of inherited privilege,” says constitutional lawyer K. S. Rajendra. “They are compensation for skilled service. The creamy layer concept was meant to exclude the affluent, not public servants performing state duties.”
Several states, including Tamil Nadu and Maharashtra, have previously sought sector-specific relaxation for similar cases. If Karnataka follows suit, it could reignite a nationwide debate about redefining creamy layer parameters in the context of professional employment.
The Emotional Cost of Policy Blind Spots
Beyond policy papers and pay scales lies a story of emotional exhaustion. Many doctors express a deep sense of alienation, feeling that their social identity has been erased by their salary slip. For doctors from humble OBC backgrounds, the denial of reservation is not merely about seat allocation—it’s about being seen and acknowledged.
“I grew up in a small village where no one had ever become a doctor before,” says Dr. Kavitha D, who belongs to the Vokkaliga community classified under OBC. “My parents took loans for my education. Today, I serve in a government hospital, but I am told I’m ‘too rich’ for the quota meant for people like me. That hurts more than rejection.”
Such testimonies underline how the rigid interpretation of income thresholds can undermine the spirit of affirmative action. By equating economic income with social advancement, experts warn, policymakers risk erasing the very inequities the quota system was designed to correct.
Economic Reality vs. Social Context
The ₹8 lakh ceiling, fixed years ago, does not account for inflation, cost of living, or sectoral differences. A junior doctor earning ₹70,000 a month in a government hospital may exceed the limit on paper but still struggle with student loans, transfer costs, and family responsibilities.
Economists point out that the creamy layer test, while well-intentioned, cannot be uniformly applied across professions. “A salaried doctor in a public hospital does not enjoy the same privileges as a business executive with equal income,” explains policy researcher Dr. Latha Narayan. “We need a nuanced approach that distinguishes between income from inherited assets and income from state service.”
Experts have proposed a graded evaluation system, where the income ceiling is indexed to professional category and region. Such flexibility, they argue, would restore fairness without undermining the principle of merit.
Impact on Rural Health and Service Motivation
The policy’s ripple effects extend far beyond admissions. In-service doctors form the backbone of Karnataka’s rural healthcare system, working under strenuous conditions and with limited infrastructure. Many joined with the assurance that dedicated service would guarantee access to postgraduate education through the in-service quota.
Now, that motivation is waning. “We were told rural service would earn us PG eligibility,” says Dr. Prakash N, serving in Chamarajanagar. “But when we apply, we are disqualified for earning a basic government salary. It’s a breach of trust.”
Health activists warn that this discontent could worsen the already severe doctor shortage in rural Karnataka, as more professionals opt for private practice or leave government service altogether. “Policy inconsistency is pushing talent away from the public sector,” says Dr. Shashank R, a senior health administrator. “If this continues, the entire primary healthcare network will suffer.”
Policy Alternatives Under Discussion
The Karnataka government is exploring several potential remedies. Among the proposals discussed are:
-
Raising the income ceiling for in-service professionals to ₹12 lakh or ₹15 lakh.
-
Exempting government salary from the creamy layer calculation, considering it a functional income.
-
Creating a separate sub-quota within the OBC category for in-service doctors.
-
Requesting the Union Government for a nationwide policy revision specific to public service roles.
While these ideas remain under consideration, bureaucratic hurdles and political caution have slowed progress. A senior official hinted that the final decision may depend on central approval, given the constitutional nature of reservation norms.
The Role of Medical Associations
The Karnataka Medical Association (KMA) and KGMOA have been at the forefront of advocacy efforts. They have submitted multiple representations to both the Chief Minister and the Union Health Ministry, urging immediate policy revision. In a recent memorandum, the associations argued that the “income ceiling has become an exclusion tool rather than an inclusion mechanism.”
Protests and petitions are gaining traction, with doctors demanding an independent review committee to assess how creamy layer criteria affect public service professionals. Medical unions have also hinted at legal action if the issue remains unresolved before the next academic year’s PG admissions.
Wider Social and Political Implications
The controversy carries significant political weight in Karnataka, where OBC groups form a major voting bloc. The Congress government, led by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, has traditionally championed OBC rights. However, the current impasse puts the government in a delicate position—balancing compliance with national policy against pressure from its support base.
Political observers believe the issue could influence upcoming state and national elections, as OBC representation in professional education remains a deeply emotive issue. Opposition parties, including the BJP and JD(S), have already accused the government of neglecting backward-class welfare. Meanwhile, national policymakers are wary of setting a precedent that could invite similar demands from other sectors like engineering and civil services.
Follow: Karnataka Government
Also read: Home | Channel 6 Network – Latest News, Breaking Updates: Politics, Business, Tech & More
