M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 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. 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. ( 4 ) IT is seen from the noting made by. the chairman of the Selection Committee on the top-sheet of the application form as follows: "father-Pleader-income Rs. 800 only per annum-Vegetarian. But on CR Rs. 2,000 P. A.-More than 30 acres land- income Rs. 1,200 per annum-Caste-having house-income exceeds Rs. 10,000". ( 5 ) ON the basis of the above, it is contended by the learned Government Pleader for the respondents that the Selection committee, after due enquiry in accordance with Rule 17 of the Karnataka Medical colleges (Selection for Admission) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') in which the petitioner gave certain answers to the question put by the Selection committee Members, the Selection Committee came to the conclusion that the income disclosed was not correct and believable and it exceeded Rs. 10,000 and therefore the petitioner was not entitled to be considered in the category of reserved seats meant for backward communities. ( 6 ) I am afraid this submission cannot be accepted. Rule 17 of the Rules is as follows:"17. 10,000 and therefore the petitioner was not entitled to be considered in the category of reserved seats meant for backward communities. ( 6 ) I am afraid this submission cannot be accepted. Rule 17 of the Rules is as follows:"17. Penalty for false and incorrect statements :- (1) Where an applicant, or his/her parent or guardian furnished false or incorrect statements in the application where the affidavit filed by him/ her or his/her parent or guardian on the certificates furnished by him/her contain false or incorrect statements, the application is liable to be rejected and the seat, if any, given to the applicant shall be liable to be forfeited. The applicant his/her parent or guardian as the case may be shall also render himself/herself liable to be proceeded against both civilly and criminally thereof. (2) Whenever the Selection Committee considers the action should be taken under sub-rule (1) for rejecting the application or forfeiting the seat the committee shall after holding such enquiry as it deems fit, and after affording reasonable opportunity to the person likely to be affected to make his representation send the report to the State government along with the concerned records and the State Government afte considering the same, shall pass appropriate orders thereon". ( 7 ) THE enquiry which the Selection Committee is expected to hold under the above rule is an enquiry which has to satisfy the judicial conscience of a Court as constituting adequate opportunity to the aggrieved person. There is no record maintained as to what questions were put to the petitioner (the petitioner denies that there was any enquiry at all) and no answers given by the petitioner have been recorded by the selection Committee except the remarks written by the Chairman which has already been extracted. There is 'no evidence whatsoever indicating that any questions were put to the petitioner. Even the remarks made by the Chairman could well be gathered by the information stated in the affidavit of the father of the petitioner, the contents of the Certificate and the information supplied in the application form and not necessarily by the questions put to the Petitioner. Even the remarks made by the Chairman could well be gathered by the information stated in the affidavit of the father of the petitioner, the contents of the Certificate and the information supplied in the application form and not necessarily by the questions put to the Petitioner. ( 8 ) EVEN assuming that an enquiry was held in the manner claimed by asking questions to the petitioner at the interview, the court should not go on those facts as the petitioner was under the age of 18 and had only finished PUC coming from a backward area of the State and could not be presumed to know all about his family's income. If the father had filed the affidavit disclosing his income, on a mere surmise, the Selection Committee has disbelieved the same, and the questions which should have been put to the father were put to the petitioner. It ought not to have been done. The petitioner who had come to get a seat ought not to have been crossexamined on the father's income and the income from the land owned by him. The conclusions reached by the Chairman certainly do not satisfy my judicial conscience and the enquiry claimed to have been held therefore is not valid and real. Therefore, the rejection of the petitioner's application is totally violative of the constitutional rights of the petitioner without an enquiry contemplated under Rule 17 of the Rules and therefore, it is arbitrary and in violation of his rights under Art. 14 of the constitution of India. The rejection, therefore, is illegal. ( 9 ) THOUGH the petition was filed in the year 1980 due to a number of reasons it had not been disposed of till this day. The academic year is nearly over. The petitioner cannot be asked to be considered for selection for the' academic year 1980-81. Therefore, I consider it appropriate to direct the 2nd respondent Selection Committee to consider the application made by the petitioner for the academic year 1980-81 for the seats available for the category to which he had applied for, for the academic year 1981 82 after holding an enquiry and satisfying itself that the petitioner qualifies in the category under which he claims a seat. The enquiry must give adequate opportunity to the petitioner and his father to prove their income and as already pointed out must stand judicial scrutiny as to the procedure followed and the adequacy of opportunity given. It is unnecessary, therefore, to disturb the selection of Respondents 3 and 4. For the reason I have given, any fresh enquiry contemplated by the Selection committee here afterwards shall be held before the end of July, 1981. Rule and direction will issue as above. The petitioner is entitled to his costs. Advocate's fee is fixed at Rs. 250. --- *** --- .