ASHOK Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition coming in 'B' group is disposed of by the following order after hearing the parties. The petitioner was an applicant for one of the seats in the Government Medical College or one of the seats available to the Government in private medical colleges in the State of Karnataka for the academic year 1980-81. He had applied for a seat in the reserved category on the ground that the belongs to "Reddy" community listed as one of the backward communities at Entry-14 (e) in the Government Order classifying Backward Classes under Arts. 15 (4) and 16 (4) of the Constitution of India, dated 1st May, 1979.

(2.) The petitioner was called for interview by the Selection Committee, the Chairman of which has been impleaded in this petition as respondent-2. Under the Rules, backward community candidates can only claim the benefit of reservation if their parents' income from all sources does not exceed Rs. 10,000. The petitioner while presenting his application in the prescribed form has annexed to his application the Certificate issued by the prescribed Revenue Authority certifying that his family income from all sources did not exceed Rs. 2,000 per year. The petitioner was called for an interview but was not selected though the petitioner had later found out that candidates who had secured less marks in the qualifying optional subjects belonging to backward communities had been selected under that group. Therefore, having no other alternative remedy, the petitioner has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution inter alia contending that his non-selection and selection of respondents 3 and 4 were not in accordance with the Rules in as much as the said respondents who had secured lesser marks than him in the qualifying optional subjects had been selected. The assertions made by the petitioner are not denied by respondents by filing any return, except by the 3rd respondent who has filed an affidavit stating that he is not a necessary party in as much as the seat has been given to him under a different category, that is, for those who pay a Capitation fee of Rs. 60,000, The petitioner does not deny the assertions made by the 3rd respondent. Therefore, it must be assumed that the 4th respondent who is unrepresented has secured lesser marks than the petitioaer.

(3.) However, learned High Court Government Pleader has made the records of the 2nd respondent-Selection Committee available to the Court for perusal. On perusal, it is seen that the petitioner's father had filed an affidavit as required under the Rules stating that he is an advocate by profession and that his income from that professional source was Rs. 800. He has further stated that he possessed 15 acres 32 guntas of dry land, 2 acres 7 guntas and 13 acres 21 guntas of Phut Kharab in Petlur village in Mudhol Taluk. The lands are assessed at Rs. 36.12 paise ; that he grows about 9 quintals of jawar in the lands and the income from the said source was about Rs. 2,000. It is further stated that he owned a house in Mudhol village valued at Rs. 1,200.