The judgment establishes that eligibility for reservation should be based on the actual community status, as supported by official certificates, rather than the community mentioned in school records or transfer certificates.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the Selection Committee constituted by the Government for making selection to the first year M. B. B. S. Course in the Medical Colleges in the state, to select and admit him for the 1st year M. B. B. S. course during the current academic year.

( 2 ) THE petitioner passed the Pre-Uni-versity examination securing 81. 33 per : cent marks in the optional subjects consisting of Physics, Chemistry and Biology. He submitted his application to the 1st resondent-Selection Committee seeking selection for admission for the first year m. B. B. S. course during the current academic year. In the application form the petitioner claimed that he is entitled to be selected against one of the seats reserved for backward communities. He produced the necessary certificate issued by the Tahsildar in support of his claim that he belongs to Ganiga Community which is one of the backward communities in whose favour the State Government has reserved certain number of seats in the medical Colleges in exercise of its power under Clause 4 of Article 15 of the Constitution. The necessary income and other certificates and affidavit were also annexed to the application. The grievance of the petitioner is that. while he had not been selected, candidates who had secured lesser marks than the petitioner and belonging to backward community have been selected.

( 3 ) SRI L. Srinivasa Reddy, learned counsel appearing for 1st respondent-Selection Committee submitted that the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he belongs to Lingayat community and not Ganiga Community. He submitted that in coming to this conclusion the Selection Committee relied on the transfer certificate produced by the petitioner in which as against the column community-it was indicated as "lingayat. "

( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner does belong to Ganiga community though by faith he is a Lingayat. In my opinion, the fact that the petitioner was Lingayat was not sufficient to reject the claim of the petitioner that he belonged to Ganiga Community. It was not disputed on behalf of the Selection Committee that among lingayats also there could be persons who belong to Ganiga Cummunity just as there were Lingayats who belonged to kuruhina Setty Community (Naige or weavers ). In the case of Somashekhar Veerappa B. Murgod v. The State of Karnataka (1) the question for consideration was whether a person who belonged to kuruhina Setty community could be treated as belonging to backward community even if the concerned candidate was also a Lingayat After referring to the report of the Backward Class commission it was held that persons who belonged to Kuruhina setty Community could not be denied reservation on the ground that they had accepted the Lingayat faith. The same principle holds good in the present case also. In fact it was not and it could not be disputed on behalf of the selection committee that if the petitioner in addition to being a Lingayat, was also a ganiga. he was entitled to be considered for selection against one of the seats reserved for backward communities. However, as already stated the reason for rejection of the claim of the petitioner was that in the transfer certificate, the community of the petitioner was mentioned only as Lingayat and not as Ganiga. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that before Ganigas were declared as backward community, and special provisions were made in their favour the petitioner had given his community as lingayat in the school records and the same entry had been carried forward in the transfer certificate issued after the pre-Univcrsity examination.

( 5 ) IN my view there is nothing unnatural in the conduct of the petitioner or his parents in not indicating that the petitioner apart from being a Lingayat also belonged to Ganiga Community, as no one knew at that stage tha