WP(C) 1040/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE C.R.SARMA Heard Mr. Y. S. Mannan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C. Baruah, le arned Standing Counsel for the Assam Public Service Commission. 2. The writ petitioner who is an OBC candidate appeared in a select ion conducted by the Assam Public Service Commission for appointment in the Assa m Civil Service and allied cadres. He secured 840 marks but his name was not in cluded in any of the select lists prepared for the different cadres/services for which advertisement was issued. Aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed. 3. What has been urged by the petitioner would need a little delica te understanding. According to him, out of 116 posts in the different services w hich were advertised, 53 posts (roughly above 50%) would fall to the share of th e reserved category candidates and the remaining 53 posts would be available for the open category candidates. According to the petitioner, the first 53 candida tes in order of merit should have filled up the open category posts and the rema ining 53 the reserved category posts. Claiming to be at Sl. No.105 of such combi ned list, the petitioner has urged that there is an obvious error in his exclusi on from the select list(s). According to the petitioner, this has happened becau se certain reserved category candidates who came within the first 53, instead of being treated as general category candidates, have been treated as reserved cat egory candidates at the time of their final selection for appointment. 4. There is an error, though subtle, in the contention advanced. Th e said error can best be demonstrated by taking into account, by way of illustra tion, the case of one Manjit Borkakoti who was placed at Sl. No.25 in order of m erit on the basis of 928 marks secured by him. The aforesaid Manjit Borkakoti is an OBC candidate and he had opted for the Assam Civil Service as his first choi ce of service. 14 open category posts in the Assam Civil Service were available. The 14th candidate in order of merit had secured 952 marks. Manjit Barkakoti, t hough placed at Sl. No.25 in order of over all merit, could not make it to the A ssam Civil Service as an open category candidate. However, if he is to be treate d as an OBC candidate, to which category he really belongs, the marks secured by him i.e 928 entitles him to be selected to the Assam Civil Service. He was, the refore, selected as an OBC candidate. There is no error in the exercise done by the Public Service Commission as above. Manjit Barkakoti was not treated as an o pen category candidate in spite of his position in order of merit amongst first 53 candidates but was treated as an OBC candidate for the purpose of selection t o the Service of his choice i.e Assam Civil Service. 5. The contention advanced by the petitioner that Manjit Barkakoti being at Sl. No.25 of the over all merit list should be treated as a general cat egory candidate has dangerous portents with the law cannot countenance. If Manji t Barkakoti is to be treated as a general category candidate, he will not make i t to the Assam Civil Service even with his 928 marks. Another OBC candidate who is relatively down in order of merit with lesser marks will qualify as an OBC ca ndidate for the Assam Civil Service to the exclusion of a more meritorious OBC candidates. Such a situation cannot be allowed to prevail. 6. The perception of the petitioner is capable of being analysed fr om another standpoint. According to the petitioner, by treating such meritorious candidates as reserved category candidates, the actions of the Public Service C ommission have reduced the posts available for reserved category candidates. The aforesaid perception of the petitioner is not correct on facts. Along with a ge neral merit list, the Public Service Commission has prepared separate select lis t for each of the service for which advertisement was issued. The number of post s available in each service and the distribution thereof amongst the general can didates and each of the reserved category candidate is mentioned in the select l ist published. 29 posts in all for all the different services in question were a vailable. A reading of the select list for each service as prepared by the Commi ssion clearly indicates that 29 OBC candidates have been appointed. If that be s o, the concept of usurping the quota for OBC candidates, as sought to be urged, will have no basis. Above all, it is not the case of the petitioner that any OBC candidate securing less than 840 marks (secured by the petitioner) has been app ointed in any service. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the s elect list(s) published by the Public Service Commission. The writ petition, the refore, has to be held to be without any merit. It is accordingly dismissed, how ever, without any order as to cost.