B M TARAKESHWARI Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to consider her case for selection to the first year M.B.B.S. Course for the academic year 1980-81 in respect of seats reserved in favour of backward community by an order of the State Government issued under Clause (4) of Art. IS of the Constitution of India.

(2.) The petitioner passed the University examination conducted by the Pre- University Beard in 1977, securing 84 per cent in the optional group ting of Physics, Chemistry, Maths and Biology. During the current academic year, the petitioner submitted her application to the second respondjent- Selection Committee seeking selectiojn for admission to the first year M.B.B.S Course. The petitioner belongs, to Vokkaliga community which is declared as backward, by the order of the State Government issued under Clause (4) of Art. 15 of the Constitu- tion. 20 per cent of the seats in Tech- nical and Professional Colleges a^e, reserved in favour of persons belonging to backward community. The condition however imposed in the order of thi,e State Government is that even the persons belonging to any one of the backward communities specified in the Government Order would be entitled to be treated as backward class, if only the income of the parents is Rs. 10,000 or below. In the application submitted 'to the 2nd respondent the Committee, the petitioner claimed that she belongs to backward class. This was on the ground that she was adopted by one Huchaveeragowda under a registered adoption deed dated 26th October, 1979 and the income of the said Huchaveeragowda, who also belongs to Vokkaliga community was less than Rs. 10,000. Obviously, the Committee has rejcted the claim of the petitioner to treat her as belonging to backward class in view of sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 of the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection for Admission) Rules 1980 which specifically provides that a consisperson cannot claim to belong to backward class or schedule caste or schedule tribe by virtue of adoption.

(3.) Sri B, G. Sridharan learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that sub-rule, (3) of Rule 5 incorporated in the Rules issued by virtue of an executive order is invalid as it contravenes the provisions of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act. He submitted that when according to law the adoptive father of the petitioner was entitled to adopt the petitioner and consequently it was a valid adoption in law, it was not open for the State Government to issue an executive order which had the effect of nullifying the adoption so permitted by law.