( 1 ) THE petitioner was an applicant for admission to Medical College in mysore State. He claimed to belong to socially and educationally backward clauses. The Selection Committee for admission to Medical Colleges did not accept his claim to belong to such backward classes. As the marks secured by him were not sufficiently high for being selected for the unreserved seats, he was not selected. In this petition, the petitioner has impugned the decision of the Selection Committee in not treating him as belonging to socially and educationally backward classes. ( 2 ) IN his application for admission, against the name of the parent, the petitioner has given the name of his mother. He stated that she had no occupation and that her annual income was Rs. 150. In the affidavit produced along with his application, he stated that he was under the protection of his mother who was housewife and whose annual Income was rs. 150. He also stated that the aggregate income of himself and of his mother was Rs. 510 per annum. ( 3 ) IN his affidavit in support of the petition, the petitioner has stated that his father was no more, that his mother was having an annual income of Rs. 150 from a house, and that he was allotted at a partition, certain moveable properties from which he realised an annual income of rs. 360. ( 4 ) IN the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the Selection Committee, it is contended that though the petitioner's parent's annual income was less than Rs. 1200, he (the petitioner) cannot be regarded as belonging to socially and educationally backward classes, as his mother was deriving income from rent and was not following any occupation falling within the five categories of occupations specified in the Government Order dated 26-7-1963 providing reservation for socially and educationally backward classes. ( 5 ) MR. S. K. VENKATARANGA Iyengar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that as the petitioner's mother was doing household work, she must be regarded as following an occupation involving manual labour. We find no substance in this contention. To do household work, in one's own house, cannot be said to be an occupation. ( 6 ) IT was next contended by Mr. We find no substance in this contention. To do household work, in one's own house, cannot be said to be an occupation. ( 6 ) IT was next contended by Mr. Venkataranga lyengar that as the petitioner's mother was a widow, she could not be expected to follow any occupation and that even if she was depending upon rents, she must be regarded as satisfying the criterion of occupation set out in the Government order dated 26-7-1963 providing reservation for backward classes. As stated by this Court in Sridhara v. Director of Technical Education, (1966) 2 Mys. L. J. 774, the reservation for backward classes, is in the nature of a concession and a person who claims the benefit of such concession must satisfy strictly the criteria laid down by the Government Order for determining such backward classes. The two criteria of income and occupation stated in the Government Order are conjunctive, i. e. , both those criteria must be satisfied before a person can be considered as belonging to such backward classes. It is not sufficient that a person claiming the benefit of reservation for such backward classes, satisfies only the criterion of income, namely, the annual income of his parent is not more than Rs. 1,200. He must also satisfy that his parent is following one of the occupations falling within the five categories specified in the Government Order. A person who does not follow any occupation for whatever reason, cannot be said to satisfy the criterion of occupation laid down by the government Order. As the petitioner's mother was not following any occupation, the petitioner cannot be regarded as belonging to socially and educationally backward classes, even though her (the petitioner's mother's) income is within Rs. 1,200. Hence, the decision of the Selection Committee in treating the petitioner as not belonging to such backward classes, is correct and does not call for interference. ( 7 ) IN the result, this petition falls and we dismiss the same. But, in the circumstances of this petition, we make no order as to costs. --- *** --- .