ORDER : JAYANT BANERJI, J. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. 2. This petition has been filed seeking the following reliefs: “(i) Hold and declare that the Inservice quota seats in the PG medical Seat Matrix – 2025 11-11-2025 (Ann-A), cannot be made subject to the Backward Classes (OBC) reservations in the II-(A), II(B), III(A), and III(B) categories as prepared and forwarded by the Respondents as all the Inservice Doctors are part of the Creamy layer, and (ii) Issue an Order, direction or writ in the nature of a Mandamus, directing the Respondents to remove the Backward Classes (OBC) reservations in the II- (A), II(B), III(A), and III(B) categoreis in the Inservice quota seats in the PG medical Seat Matrix – 2025 dated 11-11-2025 (Ann-A) as per the representation dated 24-11-2025 (Ann-E) of the Petitioners, and consequently convert the said seats to the General Category. (iii) Such other writs or orders as this Hon’ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice.” 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners as also appearing in the petition is that the petitioners are candidates who seek enrolment in the Post Graduate medical seats in respect of Post Graduate Medical Degrees and petitioner Nos.1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 16, 20, 21, 22 and 23 belong to the four OBC categories of II(A), II(B), III(A), and III(B). The aforesaid petitioners being Class 1/Group-A Officers with income over Rs.8,00,000/- fall under the Creamy layer. It is submitted that in respect of reservation under the OBC category, the aforementioned petitioners being of the Creamy layer stand deprived of the benefit of reservation under any of the categories to which they belong. The contention is that in such circumstances, to effectuate the constitutional benefits, the categories of OBC reservation in such cases should be de-categorized and the petitioners should be able to avail of the Post Graduate Medical seats. 4. Learned counsel has referred to the Government Order No.SWD 225 BCA 2000 dated 30.03.2002, which provides for the categorisation to effectuate the Creamy Layer Policy of OBC reservations. 4. Learned counsel has referred to the Government Order No.SWD 225 BCA 2000 dated 30.03.2002, which provides for the categorisation to effectuate the Creamy Layer Policy of OBC reservations. Attention has also been drawn to Annexure-II to the aforesaid G.O/notification in which it is stated that the categories of persons mentioned therein shall not be eligible for reservation of seats of posts categorized under IIA, IIB, IIIA and IIIB. It is contented that this rule would not apply to direct recruitments to posts which insist on a prescribed period of service in a lower post or experience in a post, profession or occupation as a qualification for eligibility. It is admitted to the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners specified aforesaid have an income in excess of Rs.8,00,000/- and fall in Group-A of the services and therefore are categorized in the Creamy layer. It is therefore stated that the in-service reservation sought to be provided is rendered ephemeral in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The learned counsel has referred to a judgment of this Court in Writ Appeal No.301/2025 c/w Civil Contempt Petition No.74/2025 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on 03.12.2025 in which the aforesaid G.O. of 30.03.2002 has been referred to holding that the respondent therein clearly falls under the class of Creamy layer in terms of Annexure-II to the Government Order dated 02.02.2002. 5. Learned Additional Advocate General, on the other hand, has referred to the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent – State, which states as under: 1. I state that I am presently working as Joint Director, Directorate of Medical Education, Government of Karnataka and I have been appointed as the Litigation Conducting and Swearing Officer in the above case and I am authorised to swear this affidavit on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 1 to 2 in the above writ petition. 2. I state that in the above writ petition, the Petitioners have sought a declaration that the in-service quota seats in the PG Medical Seat matrix-2025 dated 11.11.2025 vide Annexure-A cannot be made subject to Backward Classes (OBC) Reservations under Categories IIA, IIB, IIIA and IIIB as all the in-service Doctors are part of the Creamy Layer. 3. 2. I state that in the above writ petition, the Petitioners have sought a declaration that the in-service quota seats in the PG Medical Seat matrix-2025 dated 11.11.2025 vide Annexure-A cannot be made subject to Backward Classes (OBC) Reservations under Categories IIA, IIB, IIIA and IIIB as all the in-service Doctors are part of the Creamy Layer. 3. I state that the basic premise of challenge to the PG-Medical seat matrix-2025 dated 11.11.2025 in respect of in-service quota seats is that all the Doctors eligible to participate for in-service quota are already in service with income above Rs.8,00,000/- and consequently come under the creamy layer and therefore cannot avail of backward classes (OBC) reservation under categories IIA, IIB, IIIA & IIIB and hence the 81 Clinical seats out of 284 in-service quota seats earmarked for Categories IIA, IIB, IIIA & IIIB will be wasted and will be mandatorily de-categorised as no in-service doctor can avail of such seats. 4. In this regard, I state that that there is an exemption provided for in-service candidates belonging to categories IIA, IIB, IIIA and IIIB in so far as creamy layer is concerned at the time of issuance of the caste certificate and a separate Certificate in Form-H is provided for such in-service candidates due to which the grievance of the petitioners is totally misplaced. In terms of existing reservation policy, certain percentage of seats for admissions to professional courses have to be reserved for Category IIA, IIB, IIIA & IIIB and the Circular dated 08.05.2025 addresses the concerns of the petitioners. A copy of the Circular dated 08.05.2025 with attached Form-H is produced herewith as ANNEXURE-R1. 5. I state that candidates have availed of reservation under the said Category IIA, IIB, IIIA & IIIB by submitting certificate in Form-H. A copy of one such certificate is produced herewith as ANNEXURE-R2. 6. I state that the apprehension of the petitioners that the seats will go waste is also misplaced, in as much as in the second round of counselling, the unfilled reserved seats will be de-categorised to general category amongst the in-service quota and the petitioners can avail of such seats, if they are available in terms of counselling priority and other restrictions in terms of the applicable rules.” 6. Learned counsel states that the policy for reservation is being implemented uniformly throughout the State and the constitutional provisions for reservation have to be necessarily given effect to by the State which has been done in the instant case. Learned counsel has referred to a judgment of this Court in the case of Karnataka Public Service Commission vs. K. Sharada and others , ILR 2016 Kar 1315 , to contend that the observations of the Court made therein are being followed by the State Government and the circular of 08.05.2025 which is enclosed as Annexure - R1, is in keeping with the directions of this Court. It is further stated that in view of the stand taken by the State Government that the unfilled reserved seats pertaining to the in-service quota would be de-categorized to general categories amongst the in-service quota and the petitioners can avail of such seats, if they are available, in terms of counselling priority and other restrictions in terms of the applicable rules, such petitioners who belong to the OBC category would have no grievance. 7. We are in agreement with the submissions advanced by the learned Additional Advocate General. The process of de-categorization and the availability of such seats for the candidates eligible under the in-service quota as referred in paragraph No.6 to the affidavit filed by the respondent-state are relevant and therefore, the petitioners (who belong to the OBC category) would, if eligible, be able to avail of the said benefit. 8. With the aforesaid observations, this petition is disposed of.