WP(C) 51/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Mr. D.K.Misra, learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner , Mr.M.R.Pathak, lea rned Standing Counsel, Education and Mr. C.Baruah, learned counsel appearing for the Assam Public Service Commission. The relevant facts may be noticed at the outset. An advertisement was published in the Newspaper on 24.2.2005 inviting ap plications, inter alia, for 7 posts of Lecturers in Master of Computer Applicati on in the two Engineering Colleges of the State. A large number of candidates in cluding the petitioner and the Respondent No. 4 and 5 applied pursuant to the ad vertisement issued and took part in the selection. The petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 4 of the select list as a general category candidate though he belongs to the Other Backward Classes (OBC). Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who also belong t o the OBC, were placed at Sl. No. 5 and 6 of the select list as a OBC candidate. Subsequently, a corrigendum was issued on 3.3.2006 showing the name of the peti tioner in the select list as OBC candidate. However, on 17.10.2006 a communicati on was addressed by the APSC to the State Govt. indicating that the recommendati on of the Commission in respect of the petitioner was against an unreserved post . In the said communication dated 17.10.2006, however, it was mentioned that the petitioner belongs to the OBC category. On the said facts, apprehending that th e petitioner will be by-passed in the matter of appointment, as there are only 3 posts earmarked for general category candidates, the instant writ petition has been filed. It may be put on record, at this stage, that one of the posts advert ised was earmarked for being filled up by a OBC candidate. The Respondent Nos 4 and 5, in spite of due service of notice, have chos en not to contest the present proceeding. In such circumstances, the Court will have no option but to proceed ex parte against the said Respondents. There is no dispute that the petitioner belongs to the OBC category. In fact, in the corrigendum issued on 3.3.06, the said position is made clear. It is settled law that if a reserved category candidate is entitled to be appointed against an unreserved post by virtue of his/her merit, such reserved category c andidate will have to be treated as belonging to the general Category for purpos e of appointment. However, if such reserved category candidate does not come wit hin the zone of consideration on merit for a general category post, his merit po sition amongst the reserved category candidates will have to be considered for d eciding his entitlement to be appointed against the reserved posts keeping in mi nd the category to which he belongs. Applying the above law to the facts of the present case, it is clear that the petitioner, though not entitled to be appoint ed against a general category post by virtue of his merit, his merit position am ongst OBC candidates is higher than the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. The petitioner , therefore, will have a better right to claim appointment against the post earm arked for OBC candidates than the Respondent Nos. 4 and 5. Consequently, the Sta te shall act accordingly at the time when appointments on the basis of select li st are made to fill up the vacancies in question. This will dispose of the writ petition.