JUDGMENT AND ORDER (ORAL) : Heard Ms. S. Borpatragohain, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. Mr. D.P. Borah, the learned Standing Counsel, Health Department appears for the respondent Nos.1 – 4. The learned Government Advocate Mr. CKS Barua represents the respondent Nos.6, 7 & 8. The rival litigant Bitu Kurmi (respondent No.5), is represented by Mr. M.A. Sheikh, the learned Counsel. 2.1 The matter pertains to admission for medical studies in the year 2011, in the Government Medical and Dental Colleges of Assam. The petitioner belongs to the Jolha community which is recognized as a Tea & Ex-Tea Garden Category and as per the Information Brochure, 2011, 6 MBBS seats were reserved for this category. On the basis of performance of the applicant in the Common Entrance Examination Test (hereinafter referred to as “the Entrance Test”), the petitioner’s Roll No. 140390 was included in the Tea Garden Labour /Ex-Tea Garden Labour Category (hereinafter referred to as ”the TGL/Ex-TGL Category”) in the Educational Notice dated 1.7.2011 (Annexure-C). But when the petitioner with his 2076th rank in the Entrance Test went for counseling, he was not considered on the ground that the Jolha community is not listed amongst the 92 Tea and Ex-Tea Garden Tribes, in the Schedule-II of the Information Brochure, 2011. 2.2 Aggrieved by the admission refusal, the petitioner initially challenged the admission of Bitu Kurmi (respondent No.5) in the TGL/Ex-TGL Category reserved seats. However since the relief by way of admission is no longer possible by efflux of time, the litigant was allowed by the Court on 5.4.2016 to amend the writ petition. Accordingly the petitioner now applies for compensation through amendment, on account of denial of admission in the year 2011. 3.1 Ms. S. Borpatragohain, the learned Counsel for the petitioner refers to the caste certificate countersigned by the D.C., Golaghat on 5.1.2007 (Annexure-E), to project that the petitioner is certified to be a Member of the TGL/Ex-TGL Category and she refers to the Government OM dated 4.1.1984 (Annexure-F) to project that the Jolha Community is recognized as one of the 90 Tea & Ex-Tea Garden Communities, in Assam. Accordingly the petitioner questions the logic of exclusion of the Jolha Community from Schedule-II of the Information Brochure, which relate to the Tea & Ex-Tea Garden Tribes. Accordingly the petitioner questions the logic of exclusion of the Jolha Community from Schedule-II of the Information Brochure, which relate to the Tea & Ex-Tea Garden Tribes. 3.2 As the petitioner’s name was shown as the first waitlisted candidate, the learned Counsel submits that admission of Bitu Kurmi (respondent No.5), whose Roll Number was missing from the Admission Notice, could not have been given admission in the MBBS seats, reserved for the TGL/Ex-TGL Category. 4.1 On the other hand, Mr. D.P. Borah, the learned Standing Counsel for the Health Department refers to the Page-3 of the additional affidavit filed on 22.8.2012 to project that in the Entrance Test, the petitioner with his Roll No.140390 was ranked 2076th, towards the bottom whereas the respondent No.5 in the same category, was placed in 1341th rank. Therefore, the admission to the higher ranked private respondent, is contended to be justified by Mr. Borah. 4.2 The departmental lawyer further submits that the last applicant in the TGL/Ex-TGL Category who was granted admission was ranked 1673th and therefore he argues that the petitioner with his lower rank of 2076th, cannot make a legitimate complaint of deprivation of admission, in the reserve Category seats. 4.3 In so far as the missing Roll Number of Bitu Kurmi (respondent No.5) in the Educational Notice dated 1.7.2011 (Page-22), Mr. Borah refers to the averments made in paragraph-13 of the Government’s additional affidavit filed on 22.9.2011 to project that Bitu Kurmi (respondent No.5) in fact, had sought admission in the TGL Category but inadvertently, his Roll Number was not shown in the admission notice. But when the mistake came to light during verification, the necessary rectification was done. Thus, the respondent No.5 was correctly considered under the TGL Category and by virtue of his better performance in the Entrance Test, he was given admission in preference to the petitioner. 5. The learned Government Advocate Mr. CKS Baruah submits that the Jolha Community is recognized as the TGL/Ex-TGL Category under the Government O.M. dated 4.1.1984 and accordingly the Counsel submits that if petitioner’s performance in the Entrance Test would have been better, he could have legitimately claimed admission in the TGL/Ex-TGL Category. But unfortunately, his result did not merit admission. 6. Representing the private respondent No.5, the learned Counsel Mr. But unfortunately, his result did not merit admission. 6. Representing the private respondent No.5, the learned Counsel Mr. M.A. Sheikh submits that his client Bitu Kurmi with Roll No.32000 secured the 1341th rank in the Entrance Test and therefore, it is argued that the admission of respondent No.5 cannot be questioned by the petitioner, who had secured the lower 2076th rank, in the Entrance Test. 7. Admission to MBBS and other courses as per the applicable norms are to be made on the basis of merit in the Entrance Test, under the Medical Colleges of Assam, Regional Dental College, Guwahati and Government Ayurvedic College, Guwahati (Regulation of Admission of Undergraduate Students) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as “the 2007 Rules”). The list of communities covered in Tea & Ex-Tea Garden Category, are mentioned in Schedule-II of the admission brochure but surprisingly, the Jolha Community does not find place in the Schedule-II of the admission brochure. This created some confusion on the entitlement of the petitioner to be considered under the TGL/Ex-TGL Category and that is why, he was not considered during the counseling stage. But what is important is that nobody with lower merit than the petitioner, was granted admission in the TGL/Ex-TGL Category. As earlier noted, the petitioner’s rank in the Entrance Test was 2076th whereas those who were admitted in the reserve category seats (including the respondent No.5) were ranked much higher than the petitioner. Therefore, by virtue of his result, the petitioner cannot make a legitimate complaint, of unlawful deprivation. 8. The absence of Roll Number of Bitu Kurmi (respondent No.5) in the admission notice under the TGL/Ex-TGL Category is projected to be a bona fide error, which was subsequently corrected. The petitioner nowhere contends that Bitu Kurmi (respondent No.5) does not belong to the TGL/Ex-TGL Category or that he was ranked lower than the petitioner, in the Entrance Test. Therefore, admission granted to the better merited candidate in the same category, cannot give rise to a claim for compensation by a lesser merited candidate and hence, this issue is answered against the petitioner. 9. When the Assam Government O.M. dated 4.1.1984 recognizes the Jolha Community as one amongst the 90 the TGL/Ex-TGL Category, the listing of communities of this category in the admission brochure, should have been accurate without omission and greater care is expected. 9. When the Assam Government O.M. dated 4.1.1984 recognizes the Jolha Community as one amongst the 90 the TGL/Ex-TGL Category, the listing of communities of this category in the admission brochure, should have been accurate without omission and greater care is expected. But for the purpose of the claim for compensation, this exclusion may not be a very relevant factor since the petitioner even if considered to be in the TGL/Ex-TGL Category, cannot secure admission, by virtue of his 2076th rank, in the Entrance Test. 10. The admission under the applicable norms is to be granted on the basis of the merit in the Entrance Test and considering the inferior rank of the petitioner, it is not a case of unlawful denial of admission since the last candidate in the TGL/Ex-TGL Category, was ranked much higher than the petitioner. The admission to respondent No.5 was also similarly given on the basis of his better performance, in the Entrance Test. Thus the petitioner did not merit admission. 11. Considering the above factors, the denial of admission to the petitioner does not in my view, entitle him to claim compensation. Hence no relief can be granted in this case and the same is accordingly dismissed. No cost.