<.. HIGHCOURTORCMHATTISGARH.BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'bleSttri RaieevGuDta, C.J. & Hon'bleShriSunil Kumar Sinha. J. PETITIONER RESPONDENTS W.P.(C) No.1249 of 2010 Mehar Afroz Qyreshi, aged about 29 years, D/o Mubeen Ahmed Qureshi, R/0^36/770, near R.C. Church, Bairan Bazar, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) Versus 1 State of Chhattisgarh: Through the Secretary, Higher Education Departmeht, Day Kalyan Singh BhawariRaipur(G.G.) 2 Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishvavidyalaya, Raipur, through the Registrar, Raipur . (C.G.) (Writ Petition under Article 226 oftlie Gonstitution of India) ADDearance: Mr.PrateekSharma,Adv6cateforthepetitioner. Mr: Kishore Bhaduri^ AddJtional Advocate General for the State/ respondentNo.1. Mr. Rannakant Mishra, Advocate for respondent No.2. ORDER (66.05.2010) Following order of the Court was Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. delivered by (1) Vide an Admission Notice, applicatiQhs on prescribed form were invited for admission in Ph.D. Programme under various faculties during the secorid semester of Academic Session 2009-10 by the respondent/University. Faoulty of Dairy TeGhnolbgy was one of them. There Were two seats in the said faculty. It was stated in the admission notice, vide Clause 6, that reservatiGin fbr the SC, ST & OBC candidates will be given as per Chhattisgarh Govemmght Rules, but, it was not disclosed as to how many seats were there fbr the reserved candidates ^^*^^ •zfT^' .^""'.-.^..:.^.... W.E.CQNo. 1249of2010 and in which configuration. The ^ 29.1.2010. Shesecured 60'marRsout of 60, whereas'the mihimum qualifying marks were 60% i.e. 36 outof 60. Thus the petitionerwas put on the first rank inthemeritlistissuedon 2.2.2010. Thereafter the counseling took place. The petitionerwas further awarde^ she obtained total 90 marks outof 100 andwas^^N faculty of Dairy Technology^ It is important to mention this fact that no other candidate has applied fbr admissidn in the faculty of Dairy Technolbgy. Therefore, tHe petitioner was the ohly candidate to be considered for admissioh in tHe said faculty. The petitidner was denied admission because she had offered her candidature as an OBC candidate, ahd the certificate filed by the petitibner showing her to be belonging to OBC category was hot aceeptable to the University on certain technical ground and two communicatjons to this effecf were issuedto the petitionervideAnnexure-P/iandAnnexure-P/2. (2) The contention of the petitiQner is that even if her candidature was hot acceptable uhder QBG categdry, shie would have been considered undergeneralGategoryandifshewaseligibleinallrespeGtswithrelation togeheralGategoryonrrterits.sM&shOuldhavebeengivenadmissibn. (3) Retum Qn behalf of the University has been filed. It has been ContendedtliatthecertifiGateprodueedbythe petitioner, showihg her t6 be a candidate> of QBC Gategory,?was not admissible and the petitioner had applied for admission underQBCcategory,tBeref6re,thepetitioner'S candidature cannot be ^ considered for opeh eompetition ana her candidaturewaseonsideredaSvo/tf-afi-m/ffo. <£^^^ i • VS S ''^"•s W.ErfC")No. 1249 bf2810 (4) We haye heard th^ learn^d cotihsel fbr thg parties ait length ana have also perysed the records bf the writ petitien. :v> • .'. ' • . • : ' ' :. - •' (5) Admittedly, the petjtjoner had ^pljedas an^B^ OBCcertificate produGedt^^e petiti&ner, aeGording to^^^^ was not acceptable for fh^?St§te of Chthattisgarh, therefbre, her candidatUreintheOBCcafegorywasi^ecrfed,byttli^rejecti6n,byitself would not disentitle the petitkiner for GonSideration uncleF general category in labsence any Rules made in this regar^ appearingoTlb^lfofthBOniverSityGOuldnotshOwanysychAdrnissJon Rtile which may debar the consijderation of the candidature bf res^rved category Gandidate under the gerieral category on Overall merits. In our considered view, in abSence 6f any such Rules wtiich may bar considergtion as above, acarididatewho is^ntitled t6 be admittec) on the basis of merit though belohging to a reserved category or whom the University is riot Gbnsidering to be/a candidate of reserved category can well be considered to fc®admittey u category. If such principle xvroulcl npt tie applied, 'the meritorious candidates, though belohging tq^^ selected on account 6f their mgrits would be denied admission on 'the technieal ground that their^eandidature for reserved catego^w^ acceptable.. ':,',• ••,.;'':1':.'.:'1~:: .',... ^ • .. :,,;. 1, •. ', (6) In the present case neith®Kitappearsfr6rnthedoicurnehtsfiledin thewrit petition nor tearried eoynsielfor the respondenVUniYersjtyisable totellusastewhetherbothtMers^tsinthefaGyityQt were the reserved seats or any seat was avajia^^ ..•-"•'"^'^ •sf'^tiS^. W.P:('eiN6.1249of2010 category/lntheopinion6fthjsG<3urt,ifthese^wasayailab|ein^^g category, it was inCumbent l.ipon the University to consider the case of the petitioner against geriieral ciategoiyseat, notwithstandirig with thefact that the petitipner had appliea f6r;admission under OBC category and her candidature was rej^ea^oiffi^eigrouNel tliat tMe eertifi petitioner claiming her ^l^jaj^ancli^^ aGceptable to tRe Umwei^t^@J|Kis|»^§^b^ciy^^i^ :our: notiGe\wHi<:;l'i;inaag:;bia|^iiQl"i:'®@nsid®rati8n.,::-::'':1;: ^y :'.', ••., •,''..:. - ' {7) In^ Pr^errt^^^ applied fbradmission in the faculty of Dairy Technology. She has secured more thah qualifyirig marks, tfteref6re,in the facts arid Circumstances of thecase, ttie Uniyersity oughtto Mave cortSidergd the eandidature of the petitioner Undergeneral category ifithe seat underthe saicicategorywas available. ;' :, ::; 1:.;,''::' ;: : ' ' ,; .: :. (8) IntHe result, tMe petifionis allowed.TheirnpugnedcommuniGations dated 17.2,2010 (Annexi.n-e-P/T);and 11.3.2010 (Anrtexure-P/2)are quashed. It is directedthat iftheseat yndergeheral category isavailable in the faeulty of Dairy Techrlology M aamission in Ph.D. Programme, referred to above, the cahcliclature of the petitKiner shall be ciQnsiclered uhderthesaidcategorybytlieUniversity/rBspondentNO.2. - (9) Noorder as to cost. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- ChiefJustice