JUDGMENT D. Biswas, J. 1. In Ajay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar and in Ritesh R. Shah v. Dr. Y.L. Uamul and Ors. the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the question relating to admission of reserved category candidates to graduate and post graduate courses in the Medical Colleges. The law settled is that students from reserved category who are entitled to be admitted on the basis of merit against open seats, though belonging to a reserved category, cannot be considered for admission against seats reserved for reserved category. Such students have to be treated as open category candidates for the purpose of computing percentage of reservation. However, they should be given an option for admission to Graduate or Post Graduate Courses in Colleges where seats kept reserved for reserved category and, thereafter, less meritorious reserved category candidates should be considered for whichever Colleges where seats are available. 2. In the instant case, the petitioner is a candidate from OBC/MOBC category. He has questioned the admission of 14 OBC/MOBC candidates admitted by the respondent authority in Medical Colleges and adjusted against reserved category seats meant for OBC/MOBC students. These 14 candidates are entitled to admission against general category seats on account of their merit. Despite that, they have been admitted against reserved category seats reserved for OBC/MOBC in deprivation of the writ petitioner and other candidates from OBC/MOBC category who are comparatively less meritorious. 3. The result sheet and other documents annexed with the writ petition clearly indicate that 14 candidates belonging to OBC/MOBC have been admitted against reserved category seats, although they were entitled to get admission against general category seats for having secured more than 95 marks, the minimum cut-off for the relevant year. Ex-facie, the admission of these students appears to be contrary to the provisions of law as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. According to the State respondent, candidates were asked to appear in the counselling/interview for general category held on 10th and 11th of August, 2003 and that 10 candidates belonging to OBC/MOBC category and eligible for selection against general category appeared in the counselling held on 10th and 11th of August, 2003 for selection. Four (4) of them intimated that they are not willing to take admission against general category seats and opted for admission against reserved category seats. Accordingly, they have been admitted against reserved seats. Four (4) of them intimated that they are not willing to take admission against general category seats and opted for admission against reserved category seats. Accordingly, they have been admitted against reserved seats. Besides, 4 other candidates from OBC/MOBC appeared in the counselling held on 12th and 13th of August, 2003 and they have been admitted against reserved category seats. Thus, 14 candidates from OBC/MOBC, eligible for admission against open category seats, were admitted against reserved category seats. 5. It is clear from above that all the OBC/MOBC candidates have been admitted against reserved category seats though eligible for admission against open seats. No record including copies of intimation given in writing by such candidates exercising option for admission against reserved category seats have been produced by the respondent authority. It is not understood as to why and under what circumstances the respondent authority was inspired to ask for option of the candidates who were called for counselling/interview. There is no law in force authorising the respondent authority to ask for such option. The exercise undertaken appears to be ill motivated with intention to deprive the reserved category candidates who are less meritorious. Alternatively, it can be said to have been done to accommodate general category candidates who were otherwise not eligible for admission on merit. This has been done completely in violation of the law in force. 6. Mr. Mushahary, learned State counsel argued that even in case the 14 students are adjusted against general category seats, the petitioner will not be eligible for admission against reserved seats because of his inferior merit position. This argument, in my opinion, is of no consequence. It cannot cure the ills. Question of relief is, however, altogether different. The illegality/impropriety committed while admitting students is in complete negation of the Constitutional mandate as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It was an attempt to illegally deprive the under-privileged community of the society. The students thus deprived of have cause to vindicate. The State cannot shake its' hands off. 7. As on today, the admission process is over. The deprived reserved category candidates who have secured more marks than the writ petitioner are also not before this Court. Therefore, it would be appropriate to follow the course of action as adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ritesh R. Shah (supra). 8. The State cannot shake its' hands off. 7. As on today, the admission process is over. The deprived reserved category candidates who have secured more marks than the writ petitioner are also not before this Court. Therefore, it would be appropriate to follow the course of action as adopted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ritesh R. Shah (supra). 8. This petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent authority, particularly the Director of Medical Education, Assam to undertake an exercise to ascertain whether any seat is available in any of the Medical Colleges and to admit the students of OBC/MOBC category in order of merit. 9. The Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam is directed to cause an enquiry by an Officer not below the rank of Commissioner to the Government of Assam in order to ascertain as to why and under what circumstances the reserved category candidates were admitted against re served category seats although they were entitled to admission against open category seats as per law discussed above and to take appropriate action, if necessary, by initiating regular departmental proceeding, against the officers involved in the matter. The malpractice has to be stopped forever. 10. Registrar General is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Assam by Special Messenger within three days from today for necessary action. A copy of this judgment shall also be furnished to the Principal Secretary to the Chief Minister, Assam and the Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Assam in the Health and Family Welfare Department. Cost easy.