JUDGMENT : VIBHU BAKHRU, CJ. 1. For the reasons stated in the application?I.A.No.1/2025, the same is allowed. The delay of 213 days in filing W.A.No.1285/2025 is condoned. 2. These appeals arise from a common order dated 29.11.2024 [ impugned order ] passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.24219/2024 (GM-CC) connected with W.P.No.21245/2024 (GM-CC). 3. The writ petitioner (Smt. Shreya H.J) had filed W.P.No.24219/2024 impugning an order dated 26.08.2024 passed by the District Caste and Income Verification Committee [ the Committee ] – which was arrayed as respondent No.3 in the said writ petition – whereby it was held that the writ petitioner was not eligible for issuance of Sindhutva Certificate under Category-II(A). 4. The writ petitioner had also filed W.P.No.21245/2024, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to the respondents, State of Karnataka and the High Court of Karnataka, to consider the writ petitioner's case for appointment to the post of a Civil Judge through direct recruitment pursuant to the notifications dated 09.03.2023 and 23.02.2024 under Category-II(A). 5. The writ petitioner, essentially, seeks benefit of reservations in appointment to the persons belonging to Category-II(A). The same was denied to the writ petitioner as she was held to be in 'Creamy Layer', owing to the quantum of the income of her parents. 6. The learned Single Judge examined the Government Order dated 30.03.2002 , Government Order No.SWD 225 BCA 2000 and the Annexure to the said GO titled as 'New Comprehensive Creamy Layer' and observed that candidates would be ineligible for reservation under Categories- II(A), II(B), III(A) and III(B), if either of their parents/guardians is a Group-A or Group-B officers in government service or holds an equivalent position in a public sector undertaking or is otherwise employed in a private industry/institution drawing a salary not less than that of a Group-B officer and whose gross annual income exceeds Rs.2,00,000/-. The said threshold limit was subsequently revised to Rs. 8,00,000/- 7. It is submitted that the writ petitioner's mother had retired as a District Judge from the Karnataka Judicial Service on attaining the age of superannuation and her father also superannuated from the Government service as an Assistant Conservator of Forests. 8. The learned Single Judge, therefore, held that the writ petitioner could not be held ineligible on the ground that her parents were in government service holding the posts of Group-A and Group-B as they had superannuated from service. 8. The learned Single Judge, therefore, held that the writ petitioner could not be held ineligible on the ground that her parents were in government service holding the posts of Group-A and Group-B as they had superannuated from service. The affidavits affirmed by the parents of the writ petitioner were not on record before Respondent No.3 [the Committee] and therefore, the learned Single Judge held that the writ petitioner's application for validation of caste and income certificate required reconsideration. Accordingly, the Committee was directed to reconsider the writ petitioner's application for revalidation of her caste and income certificate in accordance with the Government Order dated 30.03.2002. The Court further observed that for the purpose of validating the income certificate, the pension received by her parents shall not be considered as income. 9. Mr. Udaya Holla, the learned Senior Counsel appears for the writ petitioner in W.A.No.1285/2025 (arrayed as respondent No.1 in W.A.No.364/2025). He assailed the impugned order on a solitary ground that the eligibility of a married woman is required to be considered taking into account the income of her husband and not her parents. He contended that the learned Single Judge erred in directing that the affidavits of the writ petitioner's parents be considered for the purpose of verification of caste and income certificate. He referred to the Government Order dated 28.12.1983 , Government Order No.DPAR 20 SBC 82 , and on the strength of the said order submitted that in case of the candidate being a married lady, the income of the parents should not be added to the income of the candidate and in such cases, the income of the candidate along with the income of her husband should be taken into consideration, if they are living separately as an independent family. He submitted that since the writ petitioner is married, her husband's annual income – which was disclosed as Rs.96,000/- per annum in the year 2021 – was required to be considered for verifying whether the writ petitioner falls in creamy layer. 10. The State Government has also appealed the impugned order. It is not aggrieved by the direction of the learned Single Judge for reconsideration of the writ petitioner's application for revalidation of her caste and income certificate in accordance with the Government Order dated 30.03.2002. 10. The State Government has also appealed the impugned order. It is not aggrieved by the direction of the learned Single Judge for reconsideration of the writ petitioner's application for revalidation of her caste and income certificate in accordance with the Government Order dated 30.03.2002. However, takes an exception to the directions issued by the learned Single Judge to the effect that the pension received by the writ petitioner's parents shall not be considered as income for the purposes of validating the income certificate. 11. According to the State Government, the income of the parents of the writ petitioner is required to be considered which would include the income by way of pension as well. PREFATORY FACTS 12. The writ petitioner claims that she belongs to Hindu Namadhari Caste, which is classified under Category-II(A). Her marriage was solemnized on 19.04.2018. It is stated that her husband also belongs to backward class, but in a different category. The writ petitioner obtained a certificate dated 03.03.2021 from the concerned Tahsildar, certifying that she belongs to Category-II(A). 13. Respondent No.2 (The Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka) had issued a notification dated 09.03.2023 calling for applications for filling up 57 (fifty seven) posts of Civil Judges through direct recruitment. Out of the aforesaid posts, 6(six) posts were reserved for candidates belonging to Category-II(A). The said notification was subsequently modified to the limited extent of altering the pay scale as reflected in the said notification. 14. The writ petitioner applied for the post of Civil Judge claiming reservation under Category-II(A). She also states that after her marriage, she is living separately with her husband and her family income was Rs.96,000/- during the year 2021. 15. Pursuant to the results of the competitive written examination as well as the viva voce, respondent No.2 issued a notification dated 23.02.2024 listing out 33 candidates, who were found suitable for being appointed to the post of Civil Judge in the Order of Merit. The writ petitioner was placed at Sl.No.21 in the Order of Merit and was selected under the Category-II(A)/women category. 16. In order to process the writ petitioner's appointment, it was necessary to verify the caste and income certificate. The writ petitioner was placed at Sl.No.21 in the Order of Merit and was selected under the Category-II(A)/women category. 16. In order to process the writ petitioner's appointment, it was necessary to verify the caste and income certificate. For the purpose of verification, the Deputy Commissioner, Backward Classes Welfare Department, Bengaluru Urban District sent a communication dated 16.04.2024 calling upon the writ petitioner to produce the income and caste certificates of the father and husband; residential proof of the father; pay certificate of the father, mother and husband in case they are government servants; and a copy of the pension papers of the father, mother and husband in case they had superannuated from government service. 17. The writ petitioner responded to the said letter requesting that the income of her husband be considered for the purpose of issuing the Sindhuthva certificate. She also forwarded the Sindhuthva certificate of her husband certifying that he belongs to Okkaliga of Category-III(A) and the annual income of the family is Rs.1,76,890/- (Rupees one lac seventy six thousand eight hundred and ninety only). 18. The Committee sent a letter dated 04.05.2024 insisitng that the writ petitioner furnishes the documents pertaining to her parents. However, the writ petitioner did not forward the same. She sent another letter dated 14.05.2024 reiterating her stand that details and income of her parents are not necessary. 19. The Committee issued a notice dated 23.05.2024 calling upon the writ petitioner to attend a hearing on 28.05.2024 at 09.30 a.m. along with necessary documents to get the caste and income certificate verified. Thereafter, the Committee passed an order dated 28.05.2024 rejecting the writ petitioner's requests for Sindhuthva Certificate on the ground that the writ petitioner had not produced the income of her parents. 20. The writ petitioner assailed the said order by filing a writ petition (being W.P.No.15410/2024). The said petition was disposed of by an order dated 02.07.2024, whereby the rejection order dated 28.05.2024 was set aside and the matter was remanded to the Committee. 21. A plain reading of the order dated 02.07.2024 indicates that the said order was passed on the writ petitioner's submission that if one more opportunity is granted, she would furnish the documents as required. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions. 22. 21. A plain reading of the order dated 02.07.2024 indicates that the said order was passed on the writ petitioner's submission that if one more opportunity is granted, she would furnish the documents as required. The Court clarified that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits/demerits of the rival contentions. 22. The writ petitioner filed yet another petition (being W.P.No.21245/2024), inter alia, praying that directions be issued not to publish the appointment list to the post of Civil Judges till the writ petitioner's eligibility was considered. The said petition was disposed of by an order dated 29.11.2024 whereby, this Court directed the Committee to consider the writ petitioner's case within a period of two weeks. 23. In compliance with the said direction, the Committee issued a notice dated 23.08.2024 calling upon the writ petitioner to attend the meeting on 26.08.2024 at 01.30 p.m. along with the relevant documents. 24. The writ petitioner appeared before the Committee and once again made a submission regarding issuance of Sindhuthva certificate by considering the income of her husband. The Committee rejected the writ petitioner's request by an order dated 26.08.2024 on the ground that she had failed to produce the income certificate of her parents and other documents. 25. Being aggrieved by the said order, the writ petitioner filed another writ petition (being W.P.No.24219/2024) praying that directions be issued for considering the case of the writ petitioner under Category-II(A) in the appointment list for the post of Civil Judges through direct recruitment. 26. As noted above, both the petitions were disposed of in terms of the impugned order. Reasons and conclusion 27. The only question that falls for consideration is whether the income of the writ petitioner's parents is required to be excluded in terms of the Government Order dated 30.03.2002. The said Government Order is set out below: "Government Order No. SWD 225 BCA 2000, Dated: 30 th March 2002 After careful consideration of the above proposal the Government are pleased to make the following orders: 1. The quantum of Reservation Specified in G.O. Dated: 17-09- 1994 and 31-01-1995 read at Sl. No. (1) & (2) respectively is continued for admission to Educational Institutions and Employment. 2. The revised list of Backward Classes enclosed to this order as at Annexure-l, incorporating recommendations of the BC Commission, is brought into force with immediate effect. 3. The quantum of Reservation Specified in G.O. Dated: 17-09- 1994 and 31-01-1995 read at Sl. No. (1) & (2) respectively is continued for admission to Educational Institutions and Employment. 2. The revised list of Backward Classes enclosed to this order as at Annexure-l, incorporating recommendations of the BC Commission, is brought into force with immediate effect. 3. A new comprehensive Creamy Layer Policy as detailed in Annexure-II to this Government order is brought into force with immediate effect. This Creamy Layer Policy does not apply to SCs/STs and Category-1 of the Backward Classes. Candidates belonging to Category-II(A), II(B), III(A), and III(B) shall be entitled to reservation in the manner specified in the new comprehensive Creamy Layer Policy. By Order and in the name of Governor of Karnataka, D.M. AGA Deputy Secretary to the Government, Social welfare Department. 28. Annexure II to the said order sets out the new comprehensive creamy layer policy. The same is reproduced below: ANNEXURE-II to G.O. No. SWD 225 BCA 2000 dated 30th March 2002 NEW COMPREHENSIVE CREAMY LAYER Under Article 15(4) and 16(4) of the Constitution of India, the following persons shall not be eligible for reservation of seats of posts categorised under IIA, 11B, IIIA and 111B. NOTE: 1. This rule will not apply to direct recruitments to posts which insist on C prescribed period of service in a lower post or experience in a post, profession or occupation as a qualification or eligibility. This rule applies to son(s) or daughter(s) of the persons specified below: D.M, AGA P.R. - 398 Deputy Secretary to Government, Social Welfare Department.” 29. It is apparent from the above that the candidate's income as well as the gross income of her father/mother/guardian is required to be taken into account for the purpose of determining; whether the candidate is required to be excluded under the New Comprehensive Creamy Layer policy. The threshold of the gross annual income, which was stipulated at Rs.2,00,000/- in Annexure-II of the Government Order dated 30.03.2002 was subsequently increased to Rs.8,00,000/- by virtue of the Government Order dated 14.09.2018 , [Government Order No.BCM 304 BCA 2017]. 30. The question whether the income of the spouse or the parents in case of married woman, was considered by the Supreme Court in Surinder Singh v. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others: (2014) 15 SCC 767 . 30. The question whether the income of the spouse or the parents in case of married woman, was considered by the Supreme Court in Surinder Singh v. Punjab State Electricity Board, Patiala and others: (2014) 15 SCC 767 . The Supreme Court held that the creamy layer status of a candidate is determined on the basis of the status of his parents and not on the basis of his own status or income or on the basis of status or income of his/her spouse. 31. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner submitted that the said decision is distinguishable and it is rendered in the context of a specific clarification. 32. There is merit in the said contention. The said decision was rendered in the context of the office memorandum and the clarification issued by the Government which was subject matter of consideration in the said case. However, in the present case the New Comprehensive Creamy Layer policy is unambiguous and it specifically stipulates that the candidate would be excluded if the income of the father/mother/guardian exceeds the stipulated limit. 33. Reliance placed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner on the Government Order dated 28.12.1983 is misplaced. 34. Opening sentence of the said Government Order indicates that it was issued for inserting the clarification in the definition of 'Family Income' as appearing in the Government Order dated 04.03.1977 , Government Order No.DPAR 1 SBC 77 . However, the said Government Order was expressly superseded by the Government Order dated 20.04.1994 , Government Order No.SWD 75 BCA 92 . The opening part of the said GO dated 20.04.1994 expressly mentioned prior government orders (ten in number) which were expressly superseded by the said order. 35. It is material to note that the appeal (W.A.No.1285/2025) also seeks to assail the decision of the learned Single Judge, inter alia, on the ground that the learned Single Judge had not considered the Government Order dated 12.12.1986 and 28.10.1993, which is stated to posit that once a female candidate is married, the income of the spouse is required to be taken into consideration and not the income of the parents. However, copies of the said government orders are not placed on record. Despite the opportunity, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has not produced the copies of the said Government orders. However, copies of the said government orders are not placed on record. Despite the opportunity, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner has not produced the copies of the said Government orders. Mr Holla, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, fairly stated that there are no Government orders as mentioned in Ground(V)(e) and a reference to them is an error. 36. The New Comprehensive Creamy Layer policy specifies the limit of gross annual income, which is stated above is revised from Rs.2,00,000/- to Rs.8,00,000/-. The income of a person also includes income from pension. There is no provision to exclude income from pension. Therefore, the observations made in the impugned order that the pension of the parents of the writ petitioner is required to be excluded is not supported by the plain language of the policy as set out in Annexure-II of the Government Order dated 30.03.2002. 37. In view of the above, the impugned order in so far as it directs that the pension of the writ petitioner's parents is to be excluded is set aside. In the event, the writ petitioner produces the affidavits and other documents including income tax returns to establish that the income of parents in the relevant period, was below the threshold as specified, the Committee shall examine the same within a period of two weeks from date in context of the Government Order dated 30.03.2002 as directed in the impugned order. 38. In view of the above, the appeal (W.A.No.1285/2025) preferred by the writ petitioner is dismissed and the appeal (W.A.No.364/2025) preferred by the State Government is allowed to the aforesaid extent. 39. Pending application also stands disposed of.