JUDGMENT : Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J. – Heard. 1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks to assail legality and validity of the action of official Respondents, whereby Respondent No.6 has been granted admission against seats of the general category for the Bachelor of Veterinary Science & Animal Husbandry (BVSc & AH) Course in the institution of Respondent No.4. 2. The Petitioner as well as Respondent No.6 are in-service candidates posted and working as Assistant Veterinary Field Officer under the Respondent No.2. Both the Petitioner and Respondent No.6, desirous of getting admission in BVSc & AH Course, appeared in the NEET Examination held in the year 2018. In the merit list prepared by the NEET, the Respondent No.6, belonging to Other Backward Class (OBC), secured more marks than the last candidate including the Petitioner and he was therefore, admitted against general category seats for admission to the said course. Aggrieved by this action of the Respondents in granting admission to Respondent No.6, against general category seats, the Petitioner has filed this writ petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that, even though, Respondent No.6 secured marks higher than general category candidate, he could not be accommodated against general category seats because he could appear and take up examination only upon relaxation of age limit by virtue of he being an OBC candidate. According to him, once the Respondent N.6 was granted relaxation in age by virtue of he being an OBC candidate, the Rules did not permit accommodation of Respondent No.6 against general category seats. It is the case of the Petitioner that Respondent No.6 could be granted admission only against the seat reserved for OBC category and in that event, the Petitioner would have got an opportunity to get admission against the seat occupied by Respondent No.6, in the general category. In support of the said submission, learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Deepa E.V. vs Union of India and Others, (2017) 12 SCC 680 . 4. In support of the said submission, learned counsel for the Petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Deepa E.V. vs Union of India and Others, (2017) 12 SCC 680 . 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the State and for Respondent No.6 would submit, in opposition of the relief sought by the writ petitioner, that the applicable Rules provide that where a candidate belonging to reserve category is able to secure marks more than the last candidate, in order of merit in the general category, he would be entitled to admission against general category seats and not against reserved category seats. 5. Learned counsel for the State pointed out before us that while allowing Respondent No.6 to take up the examination and considering his candidature for admission, no relaxation was granted to him by virtue of he being an OBC candidate. As far as relaxation is concerned, that was granted to all the inservice candidates irrespective of their category, in view of the direction issued by this Court in Writ Petition (S) No.5832 of 2018 (Annexure-P/7). Therefore, the admission of Respondent No.6 against a general category seats by virtue of his merit does not call for any interference. 6. We have given our anxious consideration to the submission of learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The Rules under which the admissions have to be made, provides for scheme of admission of candidates in general as well as reserve category. Rule 17.1, in particular, provides as under : ^^17-1 vkjf{kr Js.kh ds mu izR;kf'k;ksa dks ftuds izkIrkad lkekU; Js.kh ds lQy vafre izR;k'kh ls vf/kd gks mudh x.kuk lkekU; Js.kh esa dh tkdj mUgsa lkekU; Js.kh esa izos'k fn;k tk;sxk o mruh la[;k esa lkekU; Js.kh ds vafre izR;kf'k;ksa dks esfjV lwph ls gVk fn;k tk;sxk ,oa vkjf{kr Js.kh dk dksVk ;Fkkor mruk fjDr ekuk tk,xk] ijUrq ;g fofHkUu Jsf.k;ksa esa gkWjhtksUVy vkj{k.k ds varZxr oxksZ esa ykxw ugh gksxkA^^ 8. According to this Rule where a reserve category candidate is able to secure marks more than the last candidate in the general category, he would be entitled to admission against the general category seats. This Rule of general application is not limited or restricted by other provisions contained in the admission Rules. 9. According to this Rule where a reserve category candidate is able to secure marks more than the last candidate in the general category, he would be entitled to admission against the general category seats. This Rule of general application is not limited or restricted by other provisions contained in the admission Rules. 9. On facts also, we find that relaxation was granted not only to Respondent No.6, but to the entire class of in-service candidates on the basis of direction issued by this Court as ordered in Writ Petition (S) No.5832 of 2018 (Annexure-P/7). In that case, a learned Single Judge of this Court, ordered as below : “16. So far as the present litigations are concerned, keeping in view the above interpretation, which is required to bring harmony between the Regulation 2016 and Rules, 2011, the results of these petitioners will be declared by the CBSE within a period of one week from today. Subject to the result or performance of these petitioners, their eligibility and right for admission into the concerned course in the College/University would be decided. 17. Keeping in view the peculiarity of the facts and circumstances of the case, which has come in the way of these petitioners, the Court directs that the Veterinary Council of India as well as the State of Chhattisgarh will make provisions for their admission beyond the cut-off date after the declaration of the result by the CBSE. The cut-off date so fixed will not come in the way for begetting admission to these petitioners provided that they have also qualified and are successful in the NEET-2018 examination.” 10. In view of the aforesaid direction and clear stand in affidavit taken by the State, we are satisfied that the relaxation was granted to all in-service candidates, irrespective of whether they belong to general category or any other reserve category. 11. The Supreme Court's decision in case of Deepa E.V. (supra) turned on its own facts and on application of the relevant Rules in that case. 11. The Supreme Court's decision in case of Deepa E.V. (supra) turned on its own facts and on application of the relevant Rules in that case. The Rules applicable in that case were to the effect that where a relaxed standard is applied in selecting Scheduled Caste, Schedule Tribes and OBC candidates either for granting relaxation in age, experience, qualification or permitted number of chances in written examination or even extended zone of consideration, larger than what is provided for general candidates, then in that case, such candidates belonging to reserve category are to be considered for admission only against reserve vacancies and those candidates would be deemed as unavailable for consideration against unreserved vacancies. 12. In the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also taken consideration of another judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh vs State of U.P., (2010) 3 SCC 119 , which dealt with an identical situation, as the case in hand, though based on a different set of Rules, which provided generally that in case a candidate of reserve category secures marks more than general category candidates, he would be entitled to admission against the general category seats and not in reserve quota. 13. If we consider the submission of learned counsel for the Petitioner, upon consideration of the Rules which are applicable in the present case, keeping the same in juxtaposition to the Rules which are applicable in case of Deepa E.V. (supra) and one applicable in the case of Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra), we find that the present Rules are similar and pari materia, Rules which were applicable in the matter of Jitendra Kumar Singh (supra) i.e. where a candidate of reserve category is able to secure marks more than general category candidate, he would be entitled to admission as an general category candidate and not in reserve category. 14. Therefore, in our considered opinion, Respondents have not committed any illegality in granting admission to Respondent No.6 against general category seats. In that event, there will be no seat available for the Petitioner. 15. The petition has no merit and is therefore dismissed.