This appeal by special leave is directed against an order dated 22 8 1990 passed by the Karnataka Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore in Application No.
The Commission rejected the candidature of respondent No.
10,000/ per annum.
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.
1 and remitted the case back to the Commission directing it to proceed to examine the claim of respondent No.
As a companysequence respondent No.
2 posts were shown reserved for members of the backward classes Group D. Regarding one post there is numberdispute.
The Government accordingly appointed him somewhere in the year 1989 and he has companytinued in the post thereafter.
10,000/ per annum making him ineligible even though his adoptive family had income less than Rs.
1 for selection to the post in question.
1 on the basis that he did number fulfil the income criteria inasmuch as his natural family had income above Rs.
Respondent No.
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 on rejecting the candidature of respondent No.
1 in the backward class category treated him as a candidate in general category and did number show him in the order of merit for appointment in the later category.
1 challenged the view of the Commission in rejecting his candidature before the Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore.
The adoption of respondent No.
1 as such was never disputed.
2 was selected and recommended to be appointed on that basis.
2781 of 1991.
Regarding the other there arose dispute between respondents 1 and 2.
