WP(C) 6457/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE HRISHIKESH ROY Heard Mr. A.M. Mazumdar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner. Also heard M r. B. Gogoi, learned standing counsel for the Health Department, who represents the respondents. 2. This pertains to the admission to MBBS course for the year 2010 in the G ovt. Medical Colleges in Assam. The petitioner who belongs to the OBC category a ppeared in the Common Entrance Examination and secured Rank No. 566 on merit. Sh e claims that as she was ranked 64 amongst the OBC candidates, she should have b een accommodated to one of the 63 seats available for OBC category candidates. 3. It appears from the Educational Notice dated 5th July, 2010 (Annexure-5) that counseling for the selected candidates was scheduled between 12th to 18th July, 2010 and of the available 305 seats at that point of time in the three Med ical Colleges, 46 seats were meant for OBC category candidates and 157 seats for general category candidates. 4. At the first instance admission was granted to the general category cand idates from merit position 1 to 157. Amongst those within merit position 1 to 15 7, good number belonged to reserved category like OBC, ST, SC etc., but they wer e given admission not against reserved category seats but to open seats on the b asis of their respective merit position. Therefore the petitioner is also not co rrect in submitting that reserved category candidates, who were entitled to admi ssion on merit to the open category seats, were admitted against reserved catego ry seats and thereby some of the reserved category candidates were deprived of a n opportunity to get admission. 5. Subsequently, for the newly established Jorhat Medical College, 100 seat s were sanctioned by the Medical Council of India and 35 additional seats were s anctioned for the Silchar Medical College. For these additional 135 seats, 20 we re for Central quota and as such 115 additional seats became available for the S tate quota. Keeping aside 15% of the seats for OBC category, 17 additional seats became available for candidates belonging to OBC category. 6. It appears from the materials on record that for the total 63 OBC seats (46+17), 63 OBC category candidates were given admission and the last of the OBC candidates who was admitted ranked 393 in merit. Thus although petitioner conte nds that persons lower in merit than her were given admission in the OBC categor y, the materials produced before the Court belie the said submission of the peti tioner. 7. Mr. B. Gogoi has produced the admission records which shows that for the open category seats, the admissions were granted on the merit of the candidates irrespective of the category they belonged to and for the purpose of admission to the reserved category seats, transfer of higher ranked reserved category cand idates was not resorted to by the admission authority. Therefore, it is apparent that those who deserved a seat on the basis of merit, even though belonged to a reserved category, were given admission to the open category seats. 8. The 63 available OBC category seats were filled up by only OBC category candidates and the last candidate who secured admission in this category was ran ked 393 in overall merit. The petitioner having been ranked 566 in overall merit , naturally did not deserve admission into the available OBC category seats beca use of her poor rank. 9. Since none, who scored lower in merit than the petitioner in Entrance Ex amination, was given admission, I see no right of the petitioner to get admissio n to the OBC category seats on the basis of her 566 rank in the entrance test. 10. Accordingly, the writ petition being without merit is hereby dismissed.