( 1 ) THIS is a Writ petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of mandamus to the Respondents to include/select the Petitioner for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the final Select List dated 10. 10. 2003 (Annexure-E ). ( 2 ) THE Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are represented by Sri B S Patil. ( 3 ) THE brief facts of the case of the Petitioner may be stated as under:- the Petitioner, who was born and brought up in a Village called Cowdalli, Kollegal Taluk, Chamrajnagar District, studied from 1ststandard to 7thstandard at Cowdalli Village in three different schools and studied 8thstandard to 10thstandard in Christaraja High School at Hannur Village and thereafter prosecuted his College education at Mysore, and passed B. E. (Electrical) with 60. 79% marks. In pursuance of the Respondent-KPTCL Employment Notification No. KPTCL/816/28134/1999-2000 dated 7. 5. 2003 (Annexure-A) for the recruitment of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) on contract basis, the Petitioner submitted his application dated 12. 6. 2003 for the said post. The Petitioner was called for technical aptitude test, in which test he has scored 38 marks out of 100. The 2ndrespondent, as per his cal letter dated 11. 8. 2003, verified the original documents of the Petitioner, After due verification of the original documents of the Petitioner, the 2ndrespondent issued a Provisional Select List dated 22. 9. 2003 of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) to be recruited on contract basis, showing the name of the Petitioner at Sl. No. 275 as against Category II B Rural quota. The Petitioner was expecting appointment order as Assistant Engineer (Electrical), but to his surprise, his name did not find a place in the Final Select List bearing No. L/b16/2834/2002-03/vol II (I) dated 10. 10. 2003 (Annexure-E) issued by the 1strespondent KPTCL. The Petitioner was not heard nor did the Respondent intimate the reasons, but the Petitioners name was not found in the final Select List. Therefore, the Petitioner made a representation dated 13. 10. 2003 (Annexure-F) to the Respondent requesting him to look into the matter and set right the anomaly in the Final Select List, but the Petitioner was got given any reply. Once again, the Petitioner made a representation dated 15. 10. Therefore, the Petitioner made a representation dated 13. 10. 2003 (Annexure-F) to the Respondent requesting him to look into the matter and set right the anomaly in the Final Select List, but the Petitioner was got given any reply. Once again, the Petitioner made a representation dated 15. 10. 2003 (Annexure-F) to the Respondent No. 2 to clarify and issue an endorsement as to why his name has not been included in the Final Select List, but in vain. Therefore, the Petitioner is before this Court praying for writ of mandamus, as stated above, contending that having studied up to 10thstandard in the Rural area, he is eligible for selection as against Category II B. ( 4 ) THE Respondents have filed joint statement of objections contending that as per the Provisional Select List published on 22. 9. 2003 the Petitioners name was shown at Sl. No. 275 in the Category II B Rural quota giving a weeks time to submit objections, Accordingly, while considering the objections received, it was noticed that the Petitioner had prosecuted his studies from 8thstandard to 10thstandard in Hanur of Chamrajanagar District and as per the rules in force, Hanur comes in the limits of Town Panchayat, and therefore the Petitioner was not eligible to claim reservation under Rural quota. With reference to category II B General, the percentage of merit was stopped at 52. 97 and since the Petitioner had secured merit percentage at 49. 40, the Petitioner was not selected and therefore his name was not included in the final Select List. It is pleaded in Paragraphs -5 and 6 of the statement of objections that as per the Government Order in force, for the purpose of availing reservation under the rural Category, a candidate should have studied from 1ststandard to 10thstandard in any area other than a larger urban area, smaller urban area or transitional area specified under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 or the Municipalities Act, 1964. Though the Petitioner studied 1ststandard to 7thstandard in a School in Cowdally village of Kollegal Taluk, from 8thstandard to 10thstandard he had studied at Christ High School in Hanur. As per the list published by the Urban Development Department, Hanur, (Annexure-R1) being in the limits of Town Panchayat, the Petitioner is not entitled to claim reservation under the Rural Category. Though the Petitioner studied 1ststandard to 7thstandard in a School in Cowdally village of Kollegal Taluk, from 8thstandard to 10thstandard he had studied at Christ High School in Hanur. As per the list published by the Urban Development Department, Hanur, (Annexure-R1) being in the limits of Town Panchayat, the Petitioner is not entitled to claim reservation under the Rural Category. ( 5 ) THE Petitioner has filed rejoinder to the statement of objections contending that he has produced certificates, as per Annexure-H to L issued by the Head of the Institutions duly counter-signed by the Block Education Officer, as per Government Order No. DPAR 08 SRR 2001 dated 13. 2. 2001 (Annexure-M ). It is also contended that as per Annexure-N, Hanur became town Panchayat from Gram Panchayat with effect from 24. 4. 2002; whereas the Petitioner completed his studies from 1ststandard to 10thstandard (in 1991) with the rural background and merely because Hanur now has become Town Panchayat, the Petitioners claim as against Rural quota reservation cannot be denied. It is also contended that Government of Karnataka, by its secretary to the Department of Health and Family Planning, issued appointment order dated 8. 10. 2002 bearing No. 648 HSH-2002 (Annexure-O) appointing Doctors and among them, one Dr. Mahesh M, classmate of the Petitioner, who has studied at Hanur upto 10thstandard, has been appointed as against Rural quota. Therefore, it is contended that the Petitioner is entitled for being considered for appointment as against Rural quota, and therefore prays for rejecting the counter in so far it relates to justifying the Respondents action in deleting the name of the Petitioner from the Final Select List. ( 6 ) DURING the course of argument, the learned counsel, Sri S V Shastri, appearing for the Petitioner, Sri B S Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, vehemently argued as pleaded by their respective parties. ( 7 ) IN view of the contentions of the learned Counsels for the parties, the only point that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is:- whether the Petitioner is entitled to claim benefit of Sec. 3 of the Karnataka Reservation of Appointments of Posts (In The Civil Services of the State) Rural Candidates Act, 2000, as a rural candidates within the definition of sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 2 of the said Act? ( 8 ) MY finding to the above point is in the affirmative for the following reasons:- sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 2 and Sec. 3 of the Karnataka Reservation of Appointments of p9sts (in the Civil Services of the State) Rural Candidates Act, 2000 (in short, the Act) read as under:-2. Definitions (1 ). . (2) Rural Candidate means a candidate, who has studied- (i) from first standard to tenth standard where the qualifying examination prescribed for a post is S S L C or higher, or (ii) from first standard to qualifying examination where the qualifying examination prescribed for a post is lower than S S L C in a school situated in any area other than a larger urban area, smaller urban area or transitional area specified under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, or the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964. 3. Reservation of appointments or posts for rural candidates:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court or other author9ty having regard to the serious handicap suffered by rural candidates who have studied in rural schools as compared to those who have studied in urban schools and the inadequate representation of rural candidates in the civil services of the State, twenty five percent of the vacancies earmarked for direct recruitment in each of the categories of General Merit, the Scheduled castes and Scheduled Tribes and in each of the categories of the Other Backward Classes shall be reserved for rural candidates. Provided that in the case of a rural candidate belonging to general merit or the other backward classes except category I concept of creamy layer as may be applicable as per the orders of the Government with regard to reservation issued under clause (4) of Article 16 of the Constitution shall apply mutatis mutandis. Admittedly, the Petitioner has completed S S L C (10thstandard) in the year 1991; whereas Hanur has been brought within the limits of Town Panchayat namely about 10 years later, by virtue of Government notification (dated 6. 1. 2001 (Annexure-R1 ). The Petitioner has studied in rural area, as per the certificates (Annexure-H to L) issued in the prescribed form, as per Government notification dated 13. 2. 2001, by the respective Educational Institution. 1. 2001 (Annexure-R1 ). The Petitioner has studied in rural area, as per the certificates (Annexure-H to L) issued in the prescribed form, as per Government notification dated 13. 2. 2001, by the respective Educational Institution. , Therefore, the Petitioner, who satisfies the condition stipulated in sub-Sec. (2) of Sec. 2 of the Act is entitled to claim reservation under Sec. 3 of the Act. It is also pertinent to mention that the Petitioners classmate by name Dr. M. Mahesh, who had studied along with the Petitioner from 1ststandard to 10thstandard has been selected as a Rural candidate for the post of Doctor in the Health and Family Planning Department. The contention of the Respondents that the Petitioner is not entitled to claim reservation as Rural Candidate under the Act solely on the ground that now Hanur area comes within the Town Panchayat as per Government notification issued in the year 2001 holds no water. Further, the Respondents, without affording an opportunity of hearing the Petitioner, has deleted the name of the Petitioner from the final Select List in violation of principles of natural justice. It is suffice to state that the Petitioner is entitled to claim reservation as against Rural quota and thus, the Petitioner is entitled for the relief, as prayed for in the Writ Petition. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons said supra, the Writ Petition is allowed and the Respondents are directed to include/select the Petitioner for the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical) in the Final Select List dated 10. 10. 2003. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. Sri B S Patil, the learned Counsel, is permitted to file vakalath for Respondent No. 1 within three weeks. --- *** --- .