JUDGMENT AND ORDER Heard Mr. D. Saikia, the learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the Review petitioners. The 2 respondents are represented by advocate T.J. Mahanta. 2. The 2 respondents hereinafter referred to as “the Applicants” applied for admission to the Post Graduate State Health Quota Seats in the Government Medical Colleges under the Assam Medical Colleges (Regulation of Admission to Post Graduate Course) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as “the Admission Rules”). The respondent No.1 Dr. Rahi Dutta secured the 6th rank with 541 marks and the respondent No.2 Dr. Mrinmoy Kumar Phookan secured the 3rd rank with 458 marks in the admission test. 3. The Admission Rules as amended in 2012 earmarked 23 Post Graduate (P.G.) Seats (6 in Degree and 17 in Diploma Courses) for the doctors in the State Health Service who have served for 5 years in rural areas. The applicants had served in the rural areas as contractual doctors under the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) and they sought admission against the earmarked seats for doctors serving in rural areas. 4. In this year’s admission exercise, through the 1st counselling session on 27th & 28th June 2013, the applicants were denied admission and accordingly they filed the WP(C) 4105/2013 seeking direction for their admission. As it was a time bound admission matter, this Court urgently disposed of the writ petition on 30.7.2013 by directing consideration of the representation of the applicants under the amended provision of the Admission Rules. 5. Thereafter admission notice was issued on 23rd August 2013 (Annexure-I) notifying the 2nd Counselling session and the names of Dr. Mrinmoy Kumar Phookan and Dr. Rahi Dutta were notified for Counselling scheduled on 29th August 2013. The minutes of the Selection Board (Annexure-K) indicates that both the applicants were offered admission in the available courses, but since the leftover P.G. Seats after the 1st stage of admission were not to the applicants’ liking, they refused to take admission in the 2nd Counselling session. 6. The aggrieved applicants then filed the Contempt Case (C) No.341/2013, where the Court through the order dated 20.9.2013 (Annexure-M) directed consideration of their admission in the discipline of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (O & G) and in Surgery, which were available then under the surrendered seats under the All India Quota. 6. The aggrieved applicants then filed the Contempt Case (C) No.341/2013, where the Court through the order dated 20.9.2013 (Annexure-M) directed consideration of their admission in the discipline of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (O & G) and in Surgery, which were available then under the surrendered seats under the All India Quota. Admission of the 2 applicants was ordered by the Court on 20.9.2013 on the understanding that the cut off date for admission is 30th September 2013. 7. But since under the Supreme Court’s order, admission could not have been given beyond 31st August 2013, the State has filed this Review application for recall of the Court’s order dated 320.9.2013. 8. Mr. D. Saikia, the learned Addl. Advocate General refers to the Supreme Court’s order dated 23.8.2013 in the I.A. Nos. 4 & 5 in the WP(C) NO.433/2013 (Dr. Fraz Naseem vs. Union of India) to project that the leftover All India Quota Seats can be filled only upto 31.8.2013 and accordingly the Counsel argues that the Court’s direction given on 20.9.2013 for admission to the 2 applicants, will be contrary to the Supreme Court’s order. 9. Moreover, since admission was to be considered under the Admission Rules as amended in 2012, Mr. Saikia refers to the amended Rule 4 of the Admission Rules to project that the State Health Quota Seats are meant only for those doctors appointed in the State Health Service on regular basis on the recommendation of the Assam Public Service Commission and there can be no consideration for any other category of doctors who are not regularly appointed in the State Health Service. The service Experience of 5 years in rural areas stipulated as the 2nd requirement in the Admission Rules can however be as a doctor under the NRHM. But the experience under the NRHM doesn’t satisfy the first requirement i.e. being a doctor appointed in the State Health Services. Accordingly the Review petitioners contend that since neither Dr. Rahi Dutta nor Dr. Mrinmoy Kumar Phookan were appointed as regular doctors in the State Health Services and were only serving as contractual doctors under the NRHM, they do not satisfy the 1st qualification criteria for the State Health Quota Seats prescribed by Admission Rules. 10. However since the State seeks review of an order passed in a contempt proceeding, objection is raised by advocate Mr. T.J. Mahanta on the maintainability of the review petition. 10. However since the State seeks review of an order passed in a contempt proceeding, objection is raised by advocate Mr. T.J. Mahanta on the maintainability of the review petition. In his turn, Mr. Saikia refers to the Supreme Court’s decision in National Fertilizer Ltd. vs. Tuncay Alankus reported in (2013) 9 SCC 600 to project that in contempt proceeding also, there are instances of the Supreme Court recalling order passed on erroneous premises of facts and accordingly it is argued that since the order was passed erroneously by disregarding the Supreme Court’s stipulated cut off date (31.8.2013) and the non satisfaction of the 1st requirement under the Admission Rules by the applicants (being contractual doctors) the order of 20.9.2013 should be recalled. 11. However because of the meritorious performance in the entrance test by the 2 applicants who secured the 3rd and 6th rank respectively, Mr. Mahanta submits that had they been offered admission in the 1st round of Counselling in June 2013, both the applicants would have secured a P.G. Seat in the desired course. But since this was wrongfully denied, they were forced to knock on the Court’s door firstly through the WP(C) 4105/2013 and 2ndly through the Cont. Case (C) No.341/2013 and this is how they were denied justice. Moreover because of the denial in the first round, the applicants were offered the leftover seats and that is why they refused those seats in the 2nd counselling session. 12. In view of the above contention of Mr. Mahanta, I have re-read the order passed by this Court on 30.7.2013 in the WP(C) 4105/2013 but find that in that proceeding, no declaration on the petitioners’ eligibility for admission was given by this Court. In fact representation(s) of the applicants were directed to be considered under the amended provision of the Admission Rules 2012 and the matter was left to be decided by the admission authorities. Similarly in the Contempt case also, the scrutiny was limited to whether the rural service rendered by the 2 applicants as NRHM doctors satisfied the 5 years qualifying service prescribed by the Admission Rules. Even in this proceeding, there was no occasion for the Court to examine the eligibility of the applicants on the 1st criterion i.e. whether they are serving doctors appointed in the State Health Service on regular basis after being selected by the APSC. Even in this proceeding, there was no occasion for the Court to examine the eligibility of the applicants on the 1st criterion i.e. whether they are serving doctors appointed in the State Health Service on regular basis after being selected by the APSC. The focus in both proceedings not only of the Court but of both parties was on whether the 5 years experience gathered by the 2 doctors as NRHM doctors would satisfy the 2nd criterion of experience specified in the Admission Rules. 13. Here since the State seeks review of the Court’s order by contending that the order dated 20.9.2013 was based on erroneous premises, I deem it appropriate to consider whether the applicants satisfy the two main qualification criteria under the Admission Rules, for the State Health Quota P.G. Seats. Admittedly they were serving as contractual doctors under the NRHM and were never appointed to the State Health Service on regular basis on recommendation of the APSC. Therefore although this aspect was not considered in the earlier round, having considered the same now, I am of the view that the applicants as contractual doctors under the NRHM did not satisfy the 1st requirement of being regular doctors appointed in the State Health Services. This finding is given in this proceeding only because arguments are advanced and consequently decision on the point is invited by the parties. 14. When the Court passed the order on 20.9.2013, it proceeded on the basis that the cut off date for P.G. admission was extended by the Supreme Court to 30.9.2013. But this was incorrect since the Apex Court’s order given on 23.8.2013 in Dr. Fraz Naseem (supra) clearly stipulates that time was available only upto 31.8.2013 to fill up to the left over seats of the All India Quota and the State Quota. But this cut off date was not brought to the Court’s notice. Therefore even on this count, the Court’s order of 20.9.2013 is found to be based on erroneous premises of facts. 15. Consequently noticing the corrective steps taken by the Apex Court in National Fertilizer Ltd. (supra) and having noticed that the order passed on 20.9.2013 was based on erroneous premises of facts, the said order is recalled. The State’s review petition accordingly stands allowed.