LAWS(GAU)-2004-3-38

PLAVITA BORAH Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

Decided On March 05, 2004
PLAVITA BORAH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ASSAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Ajay Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar, (1994) 4 SCC 401 and in Ritesh R. Sah vs. Dr. YL Uamul & others, (1996) 3 SCC 253, the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the question relating to admission of reserved category candidates to Graduate and Post Graduate courses in the Medical Colleges. The law settled is that students from reserved category who are entitled to be admitted on the basis of merit against open seats, though belonging to a reserved category, cannot be considered for admission against seats reserved for reserved category. Such students have to be treated as open category candidates for the purpose of computing percentage of reservation. However, they should be given an option for admission to Graduate or Post Graduate Courses in colleges where seats kept reserved for reserved category and, thereafter, less meritorious reserved category candidates should be considered for whichever colleges where seats are available.

(2.) In the instant case, the petitioner is a candidate from OBC/MOBC category. He has questioned the admission of 14 OBC/ MOBC candidates admitted by the respondent authority in Medical Colleges and adjusted against reserved category seats meant for OBC/MOBC students. These 14 candidates are entitled to admission against general category seats on account of their merit. Despite that, they have been admitted against reserved category seats reserved for OBC/MOBC in deprivation of the writ petitioner and other candidates from OBC/MOBC category who are comparatively less meritorious.

(3.) The result sheet and other documents annexed with the writ petition clearly indicate that 14 candidates belonging to OBC/MOBC have been admitted against reserved category seats, although they were entitled to get admission against general category seats for having secured more than 95 marks, the minimum cut-off for the relevant year. Ex-facie, the admission of these students appears to be contrary to the provisions of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.