Judgment 1. In this case, the petitioner while prayed for direction on the respondents to admit him in the Ph.D. Degree Programme in the Department of Horticulture (Olericulture) for the Session 1996-97, has further challenged the admission of respondent (No. 7), Vidya Dhar Singh (Munda) in the said course. 2. While the main challenge in the matter of admission of respondent No. 7 has been made that he had no requisite minimum qualification of M.Sc. even at the time of his admission in Ph.D. Degree Course, the respondents have raised the question of maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that the seat is reserved for S.C./S.T. Category and petitioner being of general category, has no locus standi to challenge the admission, as he cannot be admitted. 3. The brief fact of the case shows that the respondents initially invited application for admission in Ph.D. Degree Course (1996-97) Session by notice dated 11th August, 1996. Only one seat of Horticulture (Olericulture) was shown available, as unreserved seat. The petitioner tried to submit application in pursuance of said notice dated 11th August, 1996, but it was not accepted on the plea that it will be re-advertised. 4. Subsequently, the respondent Rajendra Agriculture University re-advertised for admission in different departments of Ph.D. Degree Course by notice dated 12th March, 1997 for the same Session 1996-97. This time again, one seat was shown available with respect to Horticulture (Olericulture) Course, but it was shown to be reserved for Scheduled Caste Candidates. 15th April, 1997 was the last date fixed for submission of such application. The petitioner and some others, including respondent No. 7 submitted application for admission in the Ph.D. Horticulture (Olericulture) Course, whereinafter, a merit list was prepared for admission. The name of the petitioner was shown at No. 1 of the merit list. However, the petitioner was not admitted and respondent No. 7 was admitted against the one seat of Ph.D. Horticulture (Olericulture) Course (1996-97). 5. As stated above, the grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent No. 7 was not holding the minimum qualification of M.Sc. (Agriculture), both on the last cut-off date to file application (15th April, 1997) and/or on the date of admission (12th May, 1997). Thus, the respondent No. 7 being ineligible should not have admitted, the seat should have been filled up from general category persons in absence of eligible reserved category persons. 6. (Agriculture), both on the last cut-off date to file application (15th April, 1997) and/or on the date of admission (12th May, 1997). Thus, the respondent No. 7 being ineligible should not have admitted, the seat should have been filled up from general category persons in absence of eligible reserved category persons. 6. The respondents, including respondent Nos. 2 to 6 and respondent No. 7 have tried to justify the admission. According to them, the seat was reserved for Scheduled Caste Category and in absence of eligible Scheduled Caste Category candidates, it was filled up from amongst eligible Schedule Tribe Category Candidates in terms with State Governments guideline issued in this regard. Further, according to the respondents, as the seat is reserved, the petitioner being a member of general category, the present writ petition is not maintainable at his instance, as the petitioner cannot be admitted against such reserved seat. 7. So far as the eligibility of respondent No. 7 is concerned, the counsel for the respondents relied on clause (b) of "Important Instruction" as given in the prospectus as well as Regulation 39(iii) of the University notified on 21st October, 1991. 8. The brief submission as made on behalf of the respondents is that in terms with "Important Instruction" Cl. (b) as given in the prospectus, the respondent No. 7 was entitled to apply for admission in the Ph.D. Degree Course as he expected publication of M.Sc. result by the date of admission. It was further stated that the respondent No. 7 completed M.Sc. Agriculture Course for the Sessions 1994-96 and by the time, he applied, he had completed the course. In fact, the thesis was submitted and viva voce examination f M.Sc. (Agriculture) held on 14th April, 1997 i.e. the date prior to the last date for submission of application forms. 9. Further, according to the respondents in terms with Regulation 39(iii) the date of successful completion of Master Degree Programme shall be the date of successful completion of viva voce examination and so the date of passing of M.Sc. (Agriculture) examination with respect to respondent No. 7 will take back to 14th April, 1997 (the date of viva voce examination). Thus, the respondent No. 7 become eligible for admission in Ph.D. Degree Course, a day prior to the last date of submission of such application (15th April, 1997). 10. (Agriculture) examination with respect to respondent No. 7 will take back to 14th April, 1997 (the date of viva voce examination). Thus, the respondent No. 7 become eligible for admission in Ph.D. Degree Course, a day prior to the last date of submission of such application (15th April, 1997). 10. Having heard the counsel for the parties, according to me, the submission made on behalf of the respondents are misconceived. The clause (b) to the "Important Instruction" as given vide prospectus permits application to be filed by a candidate, who appeared in the M.Sc. examination. However, the rider is publication of result by the last date for submission of application form. The relevant portion of clause (b) aforesaid reads as follows :- "A candidate who has passed Masters degree examination under Trimester/Semester System should attach complete transcript along with an extract from the regulation of University from where they have taken the degree regarding the system of Examination and evaluation and the procedure of award of grades followed by that University with the application forms (supplied in triplicate), otherwise his application would not be entertained. In case of appearing candidate copies of Trimester/Semester Reports for the last Trimester/Semester may be submitted provided their results are expected to be published on or before the last date for submission of application form in the University" . 11 Admittedly, the result of M.Sc. examination of respondent No. 7 was not published by 15th April, 1997, the last date fixed for filing such application. Even no document was attach-ed by the respondent No. 7 with his application to show that he had passed such M.Sc. examination by such last date (15th April, 1997). The certificates as enclosed by the respondent No. 7 relating to his passing M.Sc. examination is of no avail. The certificate granted by Principal is dated 26th April, 1997 (Annexure-7(b)-83), so it cannot be stated that it was attached by the respondent No. 7 by the time he submitted his application. examination by such last date (15th April, 1997). The certificates as enclosed by the respondent No. 7 relating to his passing M.Sc. examination is of no avail. The certificate granted by Principal is dated 26th April, 1997 (Annexure-7(b)-83), so it cannot be stated that it was attached by the respondent No. 7 by the time he submitted his application. The other certificate dated 15th April, 1997 (Annexure-7b series page-86) granted by the Chairman of the Advisory Committee is also of no avail as it cannot be presumed that the petitioner attached the same with his application while sent the application through registered post, which was mandatory, and 15th April, 1997 was the last date fixed to receipt such application.This apart, according to me, in terms with clause (b) of the "Important Instruction" the publication of result is mandatory prior to the last date of making application, which will be evident from the plain reading of the aforesaid clause (b). Further, while the M.Sc. result has not been announced by the University, there was no occasion for the Principal of the College, or the Chairman of a Committee to give certificate in favour of the respondent No. 7 to facilitate his admission, when no such opportunity was given to other candidates in general, who also appeared in M.Sc. examination from any one or other University, but could not apply because of non- publication of M.Sc. result by the last date of application. 12. For the reasons stated above, I hold that the respondent No. 7 was not eligible for admission in the Ph.D. Horticulture (Olericulture) Course for the Session 1996-97. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to cancel the admission of the said respondent No. 7. 13. So far as locus standi of the petitioner is concerned, this submission made on behalf of the respondents is also misconceived. The respondents themselves have enclosed the guideline issued by the State of Bihar laying down reservation in the matter of admission in Colleges. One of the resolutions is dated 6th February, 1992 (Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit of the respondent No. 2-University) and the other is dated 14th December, 1993 (at page 89 Annexure-7 series to the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 7). One of the resolutions is dated 6th February, 1992 (Annexure-A to the counter-affidavit of the respondent No. 2-University) and the other is dated 14th December, 1993 (at page 89 Annexure-7 series to the counter-affidavit of respondent No. 7). By the latest resolution dated 14th December, 1993, the following specific stipulation has been made with respect to seats reserved for one or other category; (a) if Scheduled Caste Candidate is not available then to fill up such reserved seat from Scheduled Tribe Candidates. If Scheduled Tribe Candidate is not available to fill up their reserved seats from Scheduled Caste Candidates; (b) If both Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe Candidates are not available then to fill up their seats from amongst Most Backward Category persons; (c) If Most Backward Category person is not available then to fill up such reserved seat from Backward Category persons; (d) If with respect to seat reserved for Backward Category, no candidate available, to fill up such seat from Most Backward Category persons; (e) The seats reserved for ladies, if no such candidate available then to fill up such seats from male candidates, first from Scheduled Caste Candidates, in their absence from Scheduled Tribe Candidates, in their absence from Most Backward Category persons and in their absence from Backward Category persons.Even, thereafter, if any seat remains vacant to fill up such seat from general category persons. 14. From the aforesaid instruction/guideline and resolution of the State Government dated 14th December, 1993, it is clear that if no eligible reserved category person is available then to fill up such seat from amongst general category persons. 15. In the present case, it is admitted that the seat was reserved for Scheduled Caste Category person, but no such Scheduled Caste eligible person was available. In such case, the respondents could have allotted such seat to an eligible Scheduled Caste Candidate and not to an in- eligible Scheduled Caste Candidate like respondent No. 7. In absence of such reserved category persons, seats should have been filled up, on the basis of merit, from general category persons. 16. In such case, the respondents could have allotted such seat to an eligible Scheduled Caste Candidate and not to an in- eligible Scheduled Caste Candidate like respondent No. 7. In absence of such reserved category persons, seats should have been filled up, on the basis of merit, from general category persons. 16. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to fill up the aforesaid seat of Ph.D. Horticulture (Olericulture) Course for the Session 1996-97 from amongst the eligible candidates, on the basis of merit, in terms with resolution dated 14th December, 1993 and observation as made above, after consideration of the case of eligible candidates, including the petitioner, which is to be made within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment. 17. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.Petition allowed.