( 1 ) THE petitioner, who is a minor, has presented this petition by her guardian. He is aggrieved by the non-issuance of an interview card in respect of the selection now being held for the I year m. B. B. S. course in the State of karnataka in Government and Private medical Colleges, pursuant to the karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection for admission) Rules 1980. The petitioner has stated that he has secured 84 per cent of marks in the relevant optional subjects prescribed for eigibility. He has further stated that he applied for a seat in the quota reserved for backward community. The petitioner belongs to 'vokkaliga' community which has been declared as one of the backward communities in Karnataka. The petitioner has further averred that some other applicants belonging to his community have been issued with interview cards, having secured lesser percentage of marks in the relevant optional subjects. ( 2 ) THE chief grounds on which the writ of mandamus is prayed for in this petition to the Selection Committee to interview the petitioner in the category of applicants falling under rule 5 (1) of the Rules is with reference to the Government Order No. DPAR 1 SBC 77 dated 4-3-1977 as unconstitutional in as much as the salee order itself is unconstitutional because fixing an economic criteria of annual income at Rs. 10,000/- to derive the benefits under that Government Order is without any rationale having nexus to the object sought to be achieved under the Government Order and further that the State could not make use of a Government Order issued under art. 16 (4) for the purpose of making selection under Art. 15 (4) of the constitution. ( 3 ) THE first ground of attack is not tenable in as much as a Division Bench of this Court in S. C. Somashekarappa v. State of Karnataka, ILR 1979 Kar. 1496. has upheld the constitutional validity of the government Order of 1977 classifying backward communities and prescribing certain percentage of reservations for the purpose of recruitment to public services. ( 4 ) SRI B. G. Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, strenuously contended that the respondent-State has no power to provide for adoption of the 1977 Order for the purpose of Art. 15 (4) as a fresh order is required to be passed in that benalf. ( 4 ) SRI B. G. Sridharan, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, strenuously contended that the respondent-State has no power to provide for adoption of the 1977 Order for the purpose of Art. 15 (4) as a fresh order is required to be passed in that benalf. I am unable to accede to such a contention. All that is required TO be done under Art. 15 (4) of the Constitution is making provision for reservation. The manner and method is not indicated therein. The State which has to effect the reservations has two methods available to it. It can exercise its executive power under Art. 162 of the Constitution and. provide for reservation or it can bring in legislation providing for such reservation. So far as the state of Karnataka is concerned the practice for reservation of seats in favour of S. C. , S. T. , and special categories of persons, Backward Tribes, backward communities etc. , is by executive orders promulgated in respect of different technical education courses available in the State of Karnataka. The Rules in question are one such pertaining to academic year 1980-81 in respect of I year M. B. B. S. course. In the scheme of the Rules, the Rule itself provides for reservation and distribution of seats under Rules 4 and 5. Rules 4 and 5 read together must be understood to mean the manner in which the seats are distributed in proportion to the reservation indicated in those Rules. Therefore, so far as the percentage of reservation is concerned special provision is made in the Rules themselves. But in so far as the criteria of backwardness is concerned the Rule; commands the selection Committee constituted under Rule 8 of the Rules to follow the provisions of 1977 Government order to which a reference has been made earlier. This is neither illegal nor can it be said to be prohibited under any of the provisions of the Constitution. In my view the State has power to pass an order under Art. 15 (4) of the constitution. In the instant case the rules themselves have the effect of engrafting the Government Order in question for purpose of carrying into effect the reservation under Art. 15 (4) of the Constitution. It is as good as issuing a fresh order under Art. 15 (4) of the Constitution. In the instant case the rules themselves have the effect of engrafting the Government Order in question for purpose of carrying into effect the reservation under Art. 15 (4) of the Constitution. It is as good as issuing a fresh order under Art. 15 (4) of the Constitution. ( 5 ) FOR the reason stated above, it is unnecessary to issue rule in this petition and hence it is rejected. --- *** --- .