Research › Browse › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

1982 DIGILAW 61 (KAR)

J. VINUTHA v. SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR M. B. B. S

1982-02-25

M.P.CHANDRAKANTARAJ

body1982
M. P. CHANDRAKANTARAJ, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition is disposed of at the stage of preliminary bearing after notice to respondents. ( 2 ) THE petitioner claims that she belongs to the Backward Community in accordance with the GO No. SWL 12 TBS 77 dated 26th Feb. 1977 as amended from time to time. Petitioner applied to the 1st respondent-Selection Committee for selection of candidates for admission to the I Year MBBS course in the Government Medical College in the State of karnataka, constituted under the Karnataka Medical Colleges (Selection for Admission) rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules' ). The petitioner has herself disclosed that her father's gross salary is Rs. 800 per month and the net gross amount of salary paid to him is Rs. 1,183 20 per month. At the same time, it is asserted that the income of her father is less than Rs. 10,000 per year. Petitioner has stated that her father is entitled to deduct certain sums from his salary permitted under Ss. 16 and 80-C of the Income-Tax act to demonstrate that the net earnings is less than Rs. 10,000. ( 3 ) THE petitioner was not selected for one of the seats reserved for candidates belonging to Backward Communities under the relevant Government Order. She has learnt that candidates getting lesser marks than her have been selected in that group. In the result, she has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus directing the 1st respondent to allot a seat to the petitioner for the I Year MBBS course for the year 1981-82 in any of the government Medical Colleges. ( 4 ) RESPONDENTS have entered appearance and made the records pertaining to the application of the petitioner available to the Court. It is seen from the records that the petitioner has stated that she belonged to the community of Devanga which undoubtedly is listed as one of the backward Communities in the 1977 government Order. It is not adequate if a person belongs to a particular community which is listed as Backward Community to avail the benefit of reservation in his or her favour. Such a person shall also demonstrate that his or her parent's or guardian's income does not exceed Rs. 10,000 (in so far as we are concerned for the academic year 1981-82) from all sources. Such a person shall also demonstrate that his or her parent's or guardian's income does not exceed Rs. 10,000 (in so far as we are concerned for the academic year 1981-82) from all sources. The relevant portion of the government Order is as follows :"the Backward Communities, Backward Castes and Backward Tribes as mentioned in the list appended to this order shall be treated as Backward classes for Arts. 15 (4) and 16 (4) of the constitution of India. Only such citizens of these Backward Classes whose family income per annum is Rs. 10,000 only and below and shall be entitled to the special treatment under these articles". ( 5 ) IT is therefore, contended by the learned Government Pleader that the petitioner's family's income was shown by her at Rs. 9,600, while the Bangalore Development authority under whom the parent is working has certified that the net amount paid to him per month after all deductions was Rs, 1,129-20, The Selection Committee acting on the certificate issued by the employer rejected the claim of the petitioner for consideration of her application for one of the seats reserved for candidates belonging to Backward Communities. ( 6 ) HOWEVER, Sri Raghavan, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously argued that income from all sources occuring in the relevant portion of the Government order should be construed as income as defined under the Income-Tax Act, as the Order does not itself define that term. I do not see much force in this contention. Income as defined under the Income -Tax act is for the specific purpose of that Act and not to give a general meaning to the term 'income' if it occurs in all other statutes. The word 'income' is used in the government Order under consideration in the ordinary sense. This Court should follow the golden rule of construction and give the dictionary meaning of that term. In Webster's Dictionary, III International, vol. II, page 1143 the word 'income' is defined as follows : "income : in, (M E. income : AS, in, and cum-on, to come) 1) a coming in. 2) Money periodically received for labour or services ; also, money received from the rental of property, the proceeds of business, the profits of commerce, interest on loans, etc; revenue, 3) In Physiology, food taken into the body". 2) Money periodically received for labour or services ; also, money received from the rental of property, the proceeds of business, the profits of commerce, interest on loans, etc; revenue, 3) In Physiology, food taken into the body". ( 7 ) THE attempt made by the petitioner to show that her father's Income is less than rs. 10,000 by importing the provisions of the Income Tax Act was not proper or correct. The Selection Committee was right in rejecting the claim of the petitioner to be considered for a seat reserved for candidates belonging to Backward Community. ( 8 ) IN the result, I see no merit in the writ Petition and therefore, it is rejected. However, there will be no order as to costs. ( 9 ) SRI M. H. Motigi, Government pleader is permitted to file his memo of appearance in two weeks. --- *** --- .