Judgment Narasimham, J. 1. This petitioner applied for admission to the M.B.B.S. course at Darbhanga Medical College. In the printed form of application for admission he was required to mention not only his fathers name and his fathers profession but also his fathers annual income, (see column 3(c).) In the printed instructions issued along with the application form, all applicants were directed to enclose several certificates along with their applications. They have been described in paragraph 3 of the petition. One of such certificates is the income certificate of the father. This portion of the instruction may be quoted in full. "Income certificate of father (guardian in case father and mother are not alive) from District Magistrate or S. D. O. of the area in case a candidate belonging to the Backward Class, Annexures I and II seeks admission to the reserved for those category of candidates having fathers/ guardians annual income below Rs. 3000/-per annum ." The petitioner admittedly did not file the income certificate of his father. On the contrary, he filed his own income certificate (Annexure C) signed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, which showed that he was separate from his father in consequence of a title suit (No. 33 of 1960) and that his annual income was below Rs. 3,000/-. It is also not denied that the petitioner did not mention the income of his father in column 3 (c) of the application form. The principal. by his order, dated the 19th March, 1968 (Annexure D1) did not take into consideration the application for the reasons given below. "Your application cannot be accepted for consideration in the reserved seats unless you can produce a certificate of income below Rs. 3000 (of your father). You have submitted your own certificate of income which cannot be accepted under rules." In this writ petition it has been urged that this order of the principal was invalid and unconstitutional and should be quashed. 2 It is stated that 35 seats in the Dar-bhanga Medical College have been reserved for backward classes. The petitioner claims to be a member of the backward class, being a Kalwar A certificate of the Sub-divisional Officer, Monghyr (Annexure B) has also been filed in support of this claim. 3. The contention of Mr. Basudeva Prasad for the petitioner is twofold. The petitioner claims to be a member of the backward class, being a Kalwar A certificate of the Sub-divisional Officer, Monghyr (Annexure B) has also been filed in support of this claim. 3. The contention of Mr. Basudeva Prasad for the petitioner is twofold. Firstly, he urged that the requirement of the income certificate of the father was applicable only where the applicant is either a minor under the guardianship of his father or else where the applicant and his father are members of a Hindu joint family with the father as Karta. Accordingly to him. where there is separation between the father and son, and the son Is a maior. the production of the income certificate of the father should not have been insisted upon and the income of the applicant alone should have been considered. Secondly, he urged that the giving of preference for admission to the reserved seats only to those applicants of the backward classes whose fathers income is below Rs. 3000.00 per annum is violative of Article 15(1) of the Constitution, and that it was not saved by Clause (4) of that Article. 4. In my opinion, though these contentions are somewhat ingenious they cannot bear close scrutiny. No one has a right of admission to the Medical College. In the printed application form and in the instructions, certain conditions were imposed which required to be fulfilled by all applicants- The following notice was also given - "The application form must be correctly filled in and all the required certificates must be enclosed with the application. Incomplete application forms are liable to be rejected. Similarly if any necessary certificate is not enclosed with the application form, the application will not be considered." The petitioner applied for admission to a seat with full knowledge of these conditions Admittedly, he has not fulfilled them. His application was, therefore, liable to be rejected. The obligation between him and the Principal, so far as admission was concerned, was mainly contractual, and once he did not fulfil one of the conditions, the principal had discretion to reject the application. 5. It is true that many of the requirements in the printed application form and the instructions may not be mandatory, and if special circumstances are made out the principal may waive the non-fulfilment of some of the conditions. 5. It is true that many of the requirements in the printed application form and the instructions may not be mandatory, and if special circumstances are made out the principal may waive the non-fulfilment of some of the conditions. But no such special circumstance is made out by the petitioner, nor was a request made to the principal to waive some of the conditions. Mr. Basudeva Prasad cited instances where an applicants father may be unknown or untraced and he may not have any guardian. He also cited cases where an applicants father and the ap-licant may be on terms of bitter enmity after partition of their joint family and the father may not take any responsibility for the education of his son. If these special circumstances are made out, it will always be open to the principal not to insist on the production of the income certificate of the father, but, admittedly, no such circumstance was made out by the petitioner. Merely, by saying that he was separate from his father and that his own income was below Rs. 3000 per annum, the petitioner can neither claim to have substantially fulfilled the terms of the conditions, nor to have made out any circumstance for the principal to waive those conditions. 6. The requirement about the income certificate of the father appears to have been made to meet normal cases where either the father and the son constitute members of a Hindu Joint family, or else (even if there is no joint family property) the father being on affectionate terms with his son takes upon himself the responsibility for financing the education of his boy. Even if thtre is separation between the father and the son, it does not necessarily follow that the Hindu father will completely divest himself of any responsibility for the education of his son. Much will depend on the peculiar circumstances of each family, and the petitioner cannot, therefore, claim as of right that as soon as separation is shown between a Hindu father and his son the principal was not entitled to insist upon the income certificate of his father. 7. I now take up the constitutional question. Much will depend on the peculiar circumstances of each family, and the petitioner cannot, therefore, claim as of right that as soon as separation is shown between a Hindu father and his son the principal was not entitled to insist upon the income certificate of his father. 7. I now take up the constitutional question. In the well-known Balajis case, AIR 1963 SC 649 their Lordships pointed out the true scope of Clause (4) of Article 15 of the Constitution and observed that discrimination in favour of those members of the backward classes, who are socially and educationally backward, will be permissible. Several tests to decide whether a particular class is both socially and educationally backward were laid down (though not exhaustively) and in paragraph 23 it was pointed out : "It is true that social backwardness which results from poverty is likely to be aggravated by considerations of caste to which the poor citizens may belong, but that only shows the relevance of both caste and poverty in determining the backwardness of citizens." These observations show that "caste" and "poverty" are relevant considerations to decide whether a particular class of citizens is socially and educationally backward. The Kalwar community may be a backward community, but inasmuch as poverty also is one of the legitimate factors to be taken into consideration for the purpose of Clause (4) of Article 15, the fixing of the maximum limit as the annual income of Rs. 3000 for the parent or guardian of an applicant of the backward community will attract the said exception of Clause (4), The limit of income above which a person may not be considered to be poor will undoubtedly vary from time to time but, considering the present financial position in India, if the principal thought that, where the father or the guardian of an applicant has an annual income of Rs. 3000 he may be considered to be poor for the purpose of studying in the Medical College, such a view cannot be said to be unreasonable. Hence any discrimination in favour of those members icf the backward classes whose fathers or guardians income is below Rs. 3000 per annum for the purpose of reservation of seats in the Medical College will be saved by Clause (4) of Article 15. 8 Mr. Hence any discrimination in favour of those members icf the backward classes whose fathers or guardians income is below Rs. 3000 per annum for the purpose of reservation of seats in the Medical College will be saved by Clause (4) of Article 15. 8 Mr. Basudeva Prasad, however, contended that further discrimination between those members of the backward classes whose parents income is above Rs. 3000 and those whose parents income is below Rs. 3000 per annum was not justified. This argument, however, overlooks the fact that mere backwardness will not suffice for the purpose of elause (4) of Article 15 unless it can be further shown that those classes are socially and educationally backward. For that purpose, the Supreme Court judgment cited above, is itself a clear authority for the view that poverty is one of the decisive tests. It may, therefore, be unreasonable to give preference to all applicants of the Kalwar caste irrespective of the income of their parents or guardians. I may also refer in this connection to a recent judgment of a Full Bench of this court in Chahit Ram v. Sikandar Choudhary 1968 BLJR 103 = ( AIR 1968 Pat 337 (FB)) where the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court was fully discussed and it was pointed out that, if a particular class of persons is admitted to be both socially and educationally backward, the mere description of the same by its caste name will not amount to discrimination solely on the ground of caste. 9. For these reasons, the petition is dismissed. There will be no order for costs. B.D.Singh, J. 10 I agree.