M. RAMA JOIS, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ petition, the following important question of law arises for consideration"whether for ascertaining as to whether a person belongs to Backward Class in terms of Government Order made under Clause (4) of Article 15 of the Constitution providing reservation of seats in professional colleges in favour of backward classes, the income of a person carrying on a profession after deducting establishment and other expenses incurred by him, should be taken as the basis?" ( 2 ) THE facts of the case are as follows : the petitioner passed the Pre-University examination held by the Board of Pre-University Education of this State in April 1984. She secured 84 per cent marks in the optional group. She applied to the 2nd respondent selection committee constituted by the State Government for the purpose of making selection for admission to the medical course in respect of seats in Government Medical Colleges and in respect of Government seats in private medical colleges. She also appeared for the Entrance test conducted by the State Government for the purpose of ascertaining the merit of the candidates for making the selection. At that test the petitioner secured 985th rank. On the basis of the rank in the entrance test, she could not get a seat out of the seats available for open competition. She, however, claimed selection against one of the seats reserved for backward classes in terms of the Government order on two grounds. (i) That she belonged to Ganiga community, which is one of the backward communities declared as backward class by the State Government, and (ii) That the income of her father was less than Rs. 10,000/ -. Her claim for selection against one of the seats for backward class was rejected by the selection committee. She filed earlier a writ petition No. 14462 of 1984 before this Court. One of the grievance of the petitioner in that writ petition was, that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to prove that she belonged to Backward Class. The writ petition was allowed on 19-9-1984 and a direction was issued to the selection committee to reconsider the case of the petitioner after giving opportunity to make good her claim for selection against a seat reserved for backward classes. The writ petition was allowed on 19-9-1984 and a direction was issued to the selection committee to reconsider the case of the petitioner after giving opportunity to make good her claim for selection against a seat reserved for backward classes. Thereafter the selection committee issued a notice D/-18-10-1984 (Annexure-C) calling upon the petitioner to appear for an interview and to prove her claim against one of the seats reserved for backward classes. She along with her father, who is a chartered accountant, appeared before the selection committee on 26-10-1984. The selection committee, on consideration of the submissions made by the petitioner and her father as also the documents produced, came to the conclusion that the petitioner was not entitled to claim that she belonged to Backward Class for the reason that the gross income of the petitioner or her father was more than Rs. 10,000/ -. The decision of the selection committee reads -"the Selection Committee met to reconsider the case of Kumari Aruna G. Shettar in pursuance to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in Writ Petition No. 14462 of 1984. Kum. Aruna, the writ petitioner appeared before the Selection Committee with her father Sri Gangadhar Shettar. The Selection Committee asked Kum. Aruna and Sri G. Shettar as to what was the gross total annual income of their family from all sources. Sri G. Shettar replied that the gross total annual income was about Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand ). He further said that the income furnished by Kum. Aruna in her application as Rs. 8,400/- is the net income after deducting the incidental expenditure towards his profession like payment of rent, salary to the staff he has engaged etc. . Here, the Selection Committee referred to the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka dated 21st March 1979 in Writ Petition No. 2160 and 2161 of 1979 Dr. N. B. Anand and Kum. Latha Naik Balaji Rao v. Chairman, Selection Committee for admission to Post Graduate courses and MBBS. The petitioners were the children of one Sri N. B. Balaji Rao, a Tailor by profession. The petitioners had applied for admission to Post Graduate course in Medicine and MBBS Course respectively under the seats reserved for Backward Communities and had furnished the 'income' of their family as Rs. 7,000/- per annum after 'admissible deductions'. The petitioners were the children of one Sri N. B. Balaji Rao, a Tailor by profession. The petitioners had applied for admission to Post Graduate course in Medicine and MBBS Course respectively under the seats reserved for Backward Communities and had furnished the 'income' of their family as Rs. 7,000/- per annum after 'admissible deductions'. The selection committee had rejected their claim on the ground that their gross total annual income from all sources was more than Rs. 10,000/- p. a. The Hon'ble High Court, vide orders D/-21st March 1979, in the above writ petitions, has upheld the view taken by the Selection Committee. The gross total annual income of the family of Kum. Aruna G. Shettar is about Rs. 15,000/- as informed by her and her father Sri Gangadhar Shettar. Hence, the claim of Kum. Aruna under Backward Community category is not valid as the income of her family exceeds Rs. 10,000/- p. a. , the limit prescribed by Government. The selection committee, therefore, decided to adhere to its earlier decision wherein the claim of Kum. Aruna G. Shettar under Backward Community category for admission to I MBBS was rejected. In view of this decision, the selection committee also decided not to hold any further enquiry in the matter. "aggrieved by the said decision, the petitioner has presented this writ petition. ( 3 ) THE plea of the petitioner in support of the claim is as follows : From 1973-74 till date the income of the father of the petitioner was less than Rs. 10,000/ -. It was Rs. 8,200/- for the year 1973-74, Rs. 7720/- for the year 1981-82 Rs. 7818/- for the year 1982-83, Rs. 8,012/-for the year 1983 and Rs. 8,200/- for the year 1984-85. Therefore the selection committee was in error in holding that the income of the father of the petitioner was more than Rs. 10,000/ -. The petitioner has also produced all the Income-tax returns for the years 1981-82 to 1984-85. The statement of income for these years as produced by the petitioner is as follows :