JUDGMENT Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. 1. Vide an Admission Notice, applications on prescribed form were invited for admission in Ph. D. Programme under various faculties during the second semester of Academic Session 2009-10 by the Respondent/ University. Faculty of Dairy Technology was one of them. There were two seats in the said faculty. It was stated in the admission notice, vide Clause 6, that reservation for the SC, ST & OBC candidates will given as per Chhattisgarh Government Rules, but, it was not disclosed as to how many seats were there for the reserved candidates and in which configuration. The Petitioner appeared in the written test on 29-1-2010. She secured 60 marks out of 60, whereas, the minimum qualifying marks were 60% i.e. 36 out of 60. Thus the Petitioner was put on the first rank in the merit list issued on 2-2-2010. Thereafter the counseling took place. The Petitioner was further awarded 30 marks and she obtained total 90 marks out of 100 and was put on first rank in the faculty of Dairy Technology. It is important to mention this fact that no other candidate has applied for admission in the faculty of Dairy Technology. Therefore, the Petitioner was the only candidate to be considered for admission in the said faculty. The Petitioner was denied admission because she had offered her candidature as an OBC candidate, and the certificate filed by the Petitioner showing her to be belonging to OBC category was not acceptable to the University on certain technical ground and two communications to this effect were issued to the Petitioner vide Annexure-P/2. 2. The contention of the Petitioner is that even if her candidature was not acceptable under OBC category, she would have been considered under general category and if she was eligible in all respects with relation to general category on merits, she should have been given admission. 3. Return on behalf of the University has been filed. It has been contended that the certificate produced by the Petitioner, showing her to be a candidate of OBC category, was not admissible and the Petitioner had applied for admission under OBC category, therefore, the Petitioner's candidature cannot be considered for open competition and her candidature was considered as void-ab-initio. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the will petition. 5. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the will petition. 5. Admittedly, the Petitioner had applied as an OBC candidate. Since OBC certificate produced by the Petitioner, according to Respondent No. 2, was not acceptable for the State of Chhattisgarh, therefore, her candidature in the OBC category was rejected. But that rejection, by itself would not disentitle the Petitioner for consideration under general category in absence of any Rules made in this regard. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the University could not show any such Admission Rule which may debar the consideration of the candidature of reserved category candidate under the general category on overall merits. In our considered view, in absence of any such Rules which may bar consideration as above, a candidate who is entitled to be admitted on the basis of merit though belonging to a reserved category or whom the University is not considering to be a candidate of reserved category can well be considered to be admitted under the seats available for general category. If such principle would not be applied, the meritorious candidates, though belong to reserved category and otherwise selected on account of their merits would be denied admission on the technical ground that their candidature for reserve category was not acceptable. 6. In the present case neither it appears from the documents filed in the writ petition nor learned Counsel for the Respondent/University is able to tell us as to whether both the seats in the faculty of Diary Technology were the reserved seats or any seat was available for the general category. In the opinion of this Court, if the seat was available in general category, it was incumbent upon the University to consider the case of the Petitioner against general category seat, notwithstanding with the fact that the Petitioner had applied for admission under OBC category and her candidature was rejected on the ground that the certificate filed by the Petitioner claiming her to be a candidate of OBC category was not acceptable to the University. This we say because no Rule is brought to our notice which may bar such consideration. 7. In the present case the Petitioner was the only candidate who has applied for admission in the faculty of Diary Technology. This we say because no Rule is brought to our notice which may bar such consideration. 7. In the present case the Petitioner was the only candidate who has applied for admission in the faculty of Diary Technology. She has secured more than qualifying marks, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the University ought to have considered the candidature of the Petitioner under general category if the seat under the said category was available. 8. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned communications dated 17-2-2010 (Annexure-P/1) and 11-3-2010 (Annexure-P/2) are quashed. It is directed that if the seat under General category is available in the faculty of Diary Technology for admission in Ph. D. Programme, referred to above, the candidature of the Petitioner shall be considered under the said category by the University/Respondent No. 2. 9. No order as to cost. Rajeev Gupta, C.J. 10. I agree.