1. The short question that arises for decision in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, is whether the petitioner should have been treated as belonging to socially and educationally Backward Class as defined hy Government Order No E. D 76 T G L. 63. dated the 26th July, 1963.
2. The petitioner was an applicant for admission to one of the Government Medical Colleges in the State She has passed the Pre-University Course Examination of the Bangalore University. She secured 197 marks in the optional subjects and 35 marks in the interview, that is aggregate marks of 232 She claimed to belong to socially and educationally Backward Class The last selected candidate in the General Pool of the Bangalore University secured 240 marks while the last selected candidate in the reserved seats for socially and educationally Backward Classes, secured 222 marks in the aggregate It is undisputed that tf her claim to belong to such Backward Class Is upheld she is entitled to be selected for admission to one of the Medical Colleges and if her claim is not so accepted, she would not be entitled to be selected.
3. Government Order No. E. D. 75 T. G. L 63, dated 26-7-1963, lays down two criteria for determination of socially and educationally Backward Classes. The first criterion is that the annual income of the family of the student should not exceed Rs. 1,200. The second criterion is that the parent (or the guardian where parents are not alive) of the student should be pursuing one of the following five categories of occupations:--
(i) Actual Cultivator
(iii) Petty businessman.
(iv) Inferior service (i.e.. Clause IV in Government service and corresponding class of service in private employment) including casual labour.
(v) Any other occupation involving manual labour
4. As held by this Court in W. P. No. 1353 of 1966 (Mys), these two criteria are conjunctive and not disjunctive. That is, a student must satisfy both criteria of income and occupation. In be regarded as belonging to socially and educationally Backward Class
5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner satisfies the criterion of income as her father's annual income is stated as Rs. 480. In her application her father's occupation was stated as 'Purobil' The Selection Committee did not consider that as occupation falling within the specified categories (of occupation) The correctness of this decision is challenged in this petition
6. In the affidavit sworn to by the petitioner's father it it alleged that his occupation as 'Purohit' falls within the category of 'any other occupation involving manual labour' and that he is a petty Purohit having to do 'Parl-charika' which an assistant has to do
7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Selection Committee it is stated:
'The occupation of Purohit does not come within the residuary class of any other occupation involving manual labour The occupation of Purohit requires learning and does not Involve manual labour '
8. Mr. S. K. Venkalaranga Iyengar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contended that the occupation of the petitioner's father involves manual labour as he has a 'Paricharaka Purohit' doing purely manual work in assisting a Purohit, But in the application form presented to the Selection Committee it was not stated that the petitioner was 'Paricliaraka category of Purohit or that he was doing only manual labour in assisting a Purohit Nor was any such statement made before the Selection Commit-tee at any stage As stated earlier all that was stated in the application was that he was a Purohil. The Selection Committee had to decide the question on the basis of the mate rials placed before it We cannot determine the correctness of that decision of the Selection Committee on the basis of some new material now placed before us. Hence the real question whether the Selection Committee was justified in holding that the occupation of a Purohit is not an occupation involving manual labour
9. In deciding whether an occupation involves manual labour or intellectual labour, we have to look to the predominant character of that occupation. Every occupation involving intellectual labour may also involve some manual labour. Even a Surgeon has to work' with his hands in performing a surgical operation that does not make a Surgeon a manual labour as his profession requires sustained study, learning and use of intellect. Though a Purohit may use his hands in performing certain rituals and ceremonies, the predominant character of his occupation is that it requires study and knowledge of scriptures and of the body of traditions and the performance of his work involves mainly chanting or recitation of 'mantras' and scrip-lures We are unable to hold that the view taken by the Selection Committee that a Purohit's occupation does not involve manual labour is erroneous
10. The petitioner has made an application (I.A.I.) seeking permission to amend the petition and to implead 15 lady students who have been subsequently admitted to the Medical Colleges under the Family Planning Scheme The petitioner seeks to challenge the admission of these 15 students. As the contention now sought to he raised is based on a subsequent event and it is in no-way connected with the validity of the non-selection of the petitioner by the Selection Committee, we do not permit the petitions to amend the petition and to implead these 15 students We reject this application keeping open this contention which the petitioner may agitate in separate petition, if she so desires
11. In the result this petition fails and is dismissed No costs
12. Petition dismissed.