- (1.)This appeal by special leave is directed against an order dated 22-8-1990 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Application No. 2781 of 1991.
(2.)It appears that by an advertisement dated August 13, 1987, applications were Invited by the State of Karnataka for appointment of Sericulture Extension Officers of a given number. 2 posts were shown reserved for members of the backward classes-Group 'D'. Regarding one post there is no dispute. Regarding the other there arose dispute between respondents 1 and 2. It appears that these respondents on the basis that they were members of the backward classes of the kind applied for the post and rubbed shoulders before the Karnataka Public Service Commission. The Commission rejected the candidature of respondent No. 1 on the basis that he did not fulfil the income criteria inasmuch as his natural family had income above Rs. 10,000/- per annum making him ineligible even though his adoptive family had income less than Rs. 10,000,/- per annum. The adoption of respondent No. 1 as such was never disputed. The Commission on rejecting the candidature of respondent No. 1 in the backward class category treated him as a candidate in general category and did not show him in the order of merit for appointment in the later category. As a consequence respondent No. 2 was selected and recommended to be appointed on that basis. The Government accordingly appointed him somewhere in the year 1989 and he has continued in the post thereafter.
(3.)Respondent No. 1 challenged the view of the Commission in rejecting his candidature before the Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore. The Tribunal took the view that since adoption was valid evidenced as it was by a registered deed of the year 1979, there had been severance of relationship of respondent No. 1 with his natural family and consequently he stood uprooted from that family and transplanted in his adoptive family whose income alone could be taken into account. Admittedly respondent No. 1 was a member of the backward class group 'D' by natural birth also. His transplantation in his adoptive family only altered the criteria of family income and not his status as such. In this situation the Tribunal allowed the petition of respondent No. 1 and remitted the case back to the Commission directing it to proceed to examine the claim of respondent No. 1 for selection to the post in question.