Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 893 (GAU)

Priyakshi Rajkhowa v. State of Assam

2019-08-09

M.R.PATHAK

body2019
JUDGMENT : Manash Ranjan Pathak, J. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. J. Patowary, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. D. Saikia, learned Addl. A.G., Assam assisted by Mr. B. Gogoi, learned Standing counsel for the Health Department of the State for the respondent Nos. 1 to 4, Mr. A.M. Bora, learned Standing counsel, Medical Council of India for the respondent No.5, Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Deka, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 and Mr. S. Borthakur, learned counsel for the respondent No.7. 2. In spite of service of notice on the respondent Nos. 8 to 17 through the respondent No.3, Director of Medical Education, Assam, they did not appear in the matter. 3. The petitioners herein passed their Class XII Examination in Science i.e. All India Senior School Certificate Examination conducted by the CBSE and Assam Higher Secondary Examination, Assam Higher Secondary Education Council respectively. They appeared in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test, 2018-under Graduate (NEET-UG, in short) conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE in short) for admission into MBBS/BDS Course. The CBSE provided the following information with regard to NEET(UG) 2018 Examination: (i) Date of online submission of application - 08.02.2018 to 09.03.2018. (ii) Date of online correction of application - 15.03.2018 to 17.03.2018. (iii) Date of uploading Admit Card on Website - 2nd week of April, 2018. (iv) Date of NEET (UG) 2018 Examination - 06.05.2018. (v) Date of declaration of result - By 05.06.2018. 4. The result of said NEET (UG) 2018 was declared on 04.06.2018 which was uploaded in the website and the petitioners No. 1 to 5 were placed in the merit positions of 347, 348, 349, 351 and 353 respectively in the State Rank of Assam under the unreserved category. The counseling for the State Rank holders in said NEET-UG, 2018 was scheduled from 29.06.2018 to 05.07.2018 in the office of the Commissioner Secretary, Government of Assam in the Health and Family Welfare Department, Dispur at Guwahati, respondent No.2, wherein, for the State Rank holders from 291 to 452 was scheduled on 01.07.2018. Though petitioners appeared on 01.07.2018, but on that day admission in MBBS in the State were given upto the State Rank No. 324 and the petitioners were left out. 5. Though petitioners appeared on 01.07.2018, but on that day admission in MBBS in the State were given upto the State Rank No. 324 and the petitioners were left out. 5. On 06.08.2018 respondent No.3, the DME, Assam notified that extended second counseling for selection of candidates for admission into the first year MBBS/BDS course in the Medical and Dental Colleges of Assam for the Sessions, 2018 shall be held on 12.08.2018, declaring that State Rank holders upto 503 in said NEET (UG) 2018 would be eligible to appear in the same. Though petitioners appeared on 12.08.2018, even on that day, they were not called for admission. 6. On 09.08.2018, 24 (twenty four) numbers of seats of MBBS/BDS course belonging to 15% All India Quota were transferred to the Assam State Quota as those medical seats fell vacant under the category of 'Non-Reporting and Non-Joining', out of which 12 seats were earmarked for unreserved category. But, without disclosing any reason the State respondents kept 8 seats on hold. Though petitioners appeared for the counseling on 12.08.2018 they were not considered. 7. On 18.08.2018, the State respondents notified that Mop-up round to selection for admission in the first year MBBS/BDS course in the Medical and Dental Colleges of Assam shall be held on 21.08.2018 wherein the petitioners appeared. But in this occasion admissions into the MBBS course for the session 2018, upto the State Rank No. 346 in the unreserved category, were given, leaving out the petitioners. 8. All the petitioners are aspirants for a medical seat in MBBS course in the State. Parents guardians of the petitioners suspecting some foul play in the admission process of MBBS Course in the State for the Sessions 2018 enquired into the matter and found that the respondent Nos. 6 to 17 were illegally given admission in MBBS Course for the session 2018, under the Assam State Quota, depriving them from admission in MBBS Course in the State, though they were selected in NEET (UG) 2018. 6 to 17 were illegally given admission in MBBS Course for the session 2018, under the Assam State Quota, depriving them from admission in MBBS Course in the State, though they were selected in NEET (UG) 2018. The petitioners having common and identical grievances jointly filed this writ petition on 28.09.2018 praying amongst other for issuance of Writ of (i) Certiorari to set aside and quash letter No.HLB.170/2007/ Pt.374 dated 18.08.2018 by which the respondent No.2 transferred additional 8 (eight) medical seats of the State of Assam to the State of Meghalaya and the consequent letter dated 21.08.2018 of the State of Meghalaya, (ii) Certiorari to set aside and quash the admission of the respondent Nos. 6 to 17 and (iii) Mandamus to the State respondents to give them admission in the Medical Colleges of Assam in order of their merit for the session 2018 following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman JEE reported, (2005) 9 SCC 779 for the Sessions 2019 along with consequential interim relief. 9. By order dated 03.10.2018 notice was issued to the respondents, but there is no interim order in favour of the petitioners. 10. The petitioner contended that by the prevailing Medical Colleges & Dental Colleges of Assam, (Regulation of Admission into 1st year MBBS/BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 was amended by the Government of Assam vide Notification No. HLB. 170/07/Pt/338 dated 27.06.2018 and in its place brought into force the Medical Colleges & Dental Colleges of Assam, (Regulation of Admission into 1st year MBBS/BDS Courses) Amendment Rules, 2018 (Amended Rules of 2018, in short), from the date of its publication in the official gazette i.e., 27.06.2018, that was made applicable for admission in MBBS & BDS course in the State for the academic session 2018. 11. It is submitted that Schedule-III of said 2018 Amended Rules reveals that out of 726 seats for MBBS course in the medical colleges of Assam, 15% of it, i.e., 109 seats were earmarked for All India Quota (AIQ) and another 6 seats were allotted for the Central Pool. Further, 8 seats were allotted for the North Eastern (NE) States those who do not have a State Medical College, which are divided as (i) Arunachal Pradesh-2 seats, (ii) Meghalaya-2 seats, (iii) Nagaland-2 seats and (iv) Mizoram-2 seats. Further, 8 seats were allotted for the North Eastern (NE) States those who do not have a State Medical College, which are divided as (i) Arunachal Pradesh-2 seats, (ii) Meghalaya-2 seats, (iii) Nagaland-2 seats and (iv) Mizoram-2 seats. It is stated by the petitioners that the remaining 603 seats were for the Assam State Quota, out of which, 302 seats were for unreserved (UR) category and the other 301 seats were for reserved category candidates. 12. The petitioners stated that 10 (ten) candidates, i.e. the private respondent Nos. 8 to 17 have been illegally given admission in MBBS course against the Meghalaya State Quota, though the Amended Rules of 2018 stipulated only two seats for the said State, that too without notifying about the increase of such seats from two to ten. It is stated the petitioners could learnt from the letter No. Health. 106/2018/144 dated 21.08.2018 of the Government of Meghalaya, Health & Family Welfare Department communicating with the Director, Medical Education, Assam, that said increase was made in pursuance of a letter of the Commissioner & Secretary to the Government of Assam, Health & Family Welfare Department, respondent No. 2 issued under Memo No. HLB.170/2007/Pt./374 dated 18.08.2018. Therefore, petitioners submitted that said increase of number of seats in favour of the State of Meghalaya from two to ten seats was made by the said respondent No. 2 on 18.08.2018, being after completion of the 'Extended Second Counselling' that took place on 12.08.2018, clearly reflects that the rules of the game were changed midway, which is not permissible in the eye of law. The petitioners further contended that said 2018 Amended Rules is of statutory nature and the State respondents cannot meddled with the same as it has been done since by an executive instruction direction given in a statutory Rules cannot be interfered with. According to the petitioners the State respondents issued the said communication dated 18.08.2018 clandestinely so as to deprive the petitioners of their right of getting admissions into the MBBS course for the session 2018 under the State Quota. According to the petitioners the State respondents issued the said communication dated 18.08.2018 clandestinely so as to deprive the petitioners of their right of getting admissions into the MBBS course for the session 2018 under the State Quota. They also stated that if the State respondent would not have transferred the additional eight MBBS seats to the State of Meghalaya at the last leg of the selection process, all the petitioners would have got admission in MBBS Course 2018 in the State quota, since the State Rank Holder No.346 was the last candidate to get admission into MBBS Course 2018 as unreserved category, whereas the petitioners secured State Rank Nos. 347, 348, 349, 351 and 353 respectively. The petitioners also stated that the State respondents did not notify at any stage of such selection/admission process regarding transfer of additional eight seats from AIQ to the State of Meghalaya that facilitated for admissions of the private respondent Nos. 8 to 17 in 1st year MBBS-UG course, 2018 in the State run Medical Colleges of Assam. Therefore, it is submitted by the petitioners that such admissions of the respondent Nos. 8 to 17 is to be interfered by the Court. 13. The petitioners have also challenged the admission of private respondent No. 6, Sri Ramyak Pranjal Sarma in 1st year MBBS-UG course 2018 at Fakaruddin Ali Ahmed Medical College & Hospital, Barpeta, Assam in unreserved category under the Assam State Quota stating that while applying for NEET-UG, 2018, said respondent had given his address of Maharashtra, appeared in the admission test on 06.05.2018 in an examination centre at Maharashtra and on 19.05.2018 made a request to the CBSE in its web portal, much after the said admission test, for change of his 'State of Eligibility' stating that mistakenly he filled Maharashtra as home State, which needs to be corrected as Assam, when the time notified by the CBSE for correction was already over on 17.03.2018 for which CBSE did not reply with such request of said respondent. The petitioners submitted that though said respondent No.6 did not apply for the Assam State Quota seats and his name did not figure in the Assam State Merit Lists of NEET-UG, 2018; but, the State respondents have shown him to have secured State Rank of 345, whereas said Merit List of 2018 clearly shows that in the same, against the Rank No. 345, name of one Sri Doyeal Paul is reflected, instead of said respondent. The petitioners submitted that State respondents, during the mop-up round, had given the said medical seat to the respondent No. 6, who tactfully withhold the fact that as per the 'Important Information at a Glance' bulletin, published by the CBSE, that reflected the date of online correction of application was from 15.03.2018 to 17.03.2018 and that the said respondent, suppressing the said fact before the Court in his writ petition, i.e., WP(C) No.4156/2018 (Pranjal Sharma Vs. State of Assam and 3 Others), obtained favourable orders, wherein interim order was passed on 25.06.2019 and was finally disposed of on 29.08.2018. 14. The petitioners have further challenged the admission of the private respondent No. 7, Sri Partho Pratim Saikia in 1st year MBBS-UG course 2018 at F.A. Ahmed Medical College & Hospital, Barpeta, Assam in the unreserved category under the Assam State Quota stating that in the Assam State Merit Lists of NEET-UG, 2018 at State Rank 1112, name of said respondent No.7 was reflected as unreserved category candidate. Petitioners stated that the last unreserved category candidate to secure a berth in the 1st year MBBS-UG course, 2018 in the State Medical Colleges of Assam is the State Rank Holder No. 346 and therefore, the respondent No.7, securing 1112 rank in the State Merit list, could not have get admission into MBBS course and to overcome such hurdles, the State respondents gave him admission into 1 st year MBBS course at F.A. Ahmed Medical College, Barpeta, Assam showing him to be OBC/MOBC candidate, although the State Merit Lists shows him to be an unreserved candidate. In this regard, petitioners further stated that in the official website of said F.A. Ahmed Medical College, Barpeta, the respondent No.7 is shown as an unreserved category candidate. 15. It is submitted that for the actions noted above, the petitioners have reason to believe that the private respondent Nos. In this regard, petitioners further stated that in the official website of said F.A. Ahmed Medical College, Barpeta, the respondent No.7 is shown as an unreserved category candidate. 15. It is submitted that for the actions noted above, the petitioners have reason to believe that the private respondent Nos. 6 to 17 had been given admission into 1st year MBBS course for the Session 2018-19 in different Medical Colleges of the State Government under the State Quota in an arbitrary manner and in extraneous considerations, so as to deprive them from getting admission into 1st year MBBS course for the Session 2018-19 under the State Quota. 16. The petitioners have placed before the Court that the States of Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram are having their own Medical Colleges, namely, Tamo Riba Institute of Health and Medical Sciences, Naharlagun, Arunachal Pradesh and Mizoram Institute of Medical Education and Research, Falkawan, Mizoram with enrolling capacity of 50 and 100 MBBS students respectively for the academic session 2018-19, for which the Medical Council of India (MCI) on 25.05.2018 issued letter granting necessary permission to start those two medical colleges w.e.f. 13.06.2018. Stating the same, the petitioners submitted that when those two States have their own medical colleges, it is not known as to why the State respondents have allotted two MBBS seats, each for the States of Arunachal Pradesh as well as Mizoram for the Sessions 2018, depriving its own students, like them. 17. The State respondents as well as the private respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have filed their affidavits-in-oppositions to which the petitioners have filed their replies, reiterating their submissions made in the writ petition. 18. As in the Assam State Merit Lists of NEET-UG, 2018, the petitioners have secured State Ranks of 347, 348, 349, 351 and 353, respectively and due to arbitrary and illegal act on the part of the State Respondents, they have been deprived from getting admission into 1 st year MBBS course for the Session 2018-19 in differrent Medical Colleges of the State Government under the State Quota of unreserved category, therefore, relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE and Others, (2005) 9 SCC 779 , passed by of a three Judges Bench, Mr. Chairman, JEE and Others, (2005) 9 SCC 779 , passed by of a three Judges Bench, Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel, submitted that directions should be issued to the State respondents to give admission to the petitioners in MBBS course, in any of the State Medical Colleges, in the current academic year of 2019-20. 19. Mr. D. Saikia, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the State respondents from the affidavit filed by the Director of Medical Education submitted that for the purpose of counseling and the selection process for admission in MBBS Course for the Session 2018 in the State, the authority had called extra numbers of candidates, whose names figured in the Assam State Merit Lists of NEET-UG, 2018 against the available seats and accordingly petitioners were also called for their counseling. It is stated that the candidates in said MBBS Course for the Session 2018 in the State were given only to those, who were selected by the concerned Selection Board on being present in such counseling, as per choice of their institution, categories against the available seats, but solely on the basis of their merit position and that the remaining candidates were placed in the waiting list automatically. 20. Mr. Saikia, learned Addl. A.G. stated that in terms of agreement between the State of Assam and State of Meghalaya, ten seats of MBBS were kept reserved for the State of Meghalaya from the session of 1978 to 2016 and in the session 2017-18 the State of Assam kept only two seats reserved for State of Meghalaya. But in pursuance of the order (interim order) passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 22.09.2017 in SLP (C) No.21223/2017, the Government of Assam again allotted ten seats to the State of Meghalaya. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 30.01.2018 made the said interim order dated 22.09.2017 passed in SLP(C) No.21223/2017 as final and disposed of the said SLP. 21. Mr. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated 30.01.2018 made the said interim order dated 22.09.2017 passed in SLP(C) No.21223/2017 as final and disposed of the said SLP. 21. Mr. Saikia submitted that though the Government of Assam inadvertently reserved only two seats for the State of Meghalaya in the session 2018, amending the MBBS/BDS UG Admission Rules, as stated by the petitioners, but on the approach of the Government of Meghalaya for their ten MBBS seats in terms of the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted above; the Government of Assam agreed to such demand of the Government of Meghalaya and allowed them eight more seats from the 15% All India Quota vacancy, in addition to aforesaid two seats. Mr. Saikia however clarified that those additional eight seats allotted to the State Meghalaya were not from the State Quota seats as claimed by the petitioners. He also submitted that after giving those eight seats to the State of Meghalaya as well as the remaining All India Quota vacant seats from the 15% All India Quota vacancy and the vacancy of the State Quota of the medical seats in the State, during the session 2018, were filled up category wise according to the merit positions of the candidates. Mr. Saikia, therefore, submits as per the said decision of the State Government and the direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court noted above, respondent Nos. 8 to 17 were given admission in the medical course for the Session 2018 in the Medical Colleges of State of Assam. 22. With regard to respondent No.6 Sri Ramyak Pranjal Sharma, Mr. Saikia submitted that pursuant to the order of the Court dated 29.08.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 4156/2018 the concerned Selection Committee on 31.08.2018 took a reasoned and conscious decision regarding his admission in MBBS Course in the State. 22. With regard to respondent No.6 Sri Ramyak Pranjal Sharma, Mr. Saikia submitted that pursuant to the order of the Court dated 29.08.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 4156/2018 the concerned Selection Committee on 31.08.2018 took a reasoned and conscious decision regarding his admission in MBBS Course in the State. It is stated that after scrutinizing the documents submitted by the respondent No.6, on finding that he had to undertake his studies outside the State of Assam as his father who is an employee of ONGC, was posted outside Assam during the period from May, 2001 to May, 2016 and since the said candidate satisfied the eligibility criteria of the exception to the Clause 3(1)(C) of the Assam Medical Admission Rules, therefore, the concerned Selection Committee on 31.08.2018 being convinced and considering his merit position, allowed the said respondent No.6 to take his admission in the MBBS Course in F.A.A. Medical College, Barpeta that was kept reserved for him in the previous counseling. 23. With regard to respondent No.7, Partho Pratim Saikia, Mr. Saikia submitted that though the said candidate secured merit position of 1112 in the Assam State Merit Lists of NEET-UG, 2018 and that his name was reflected as unreserved category, but at the time of counseling for the OBC/MOBC category, he approached the Selection Committee with supporting documents of his OBC category, that were issued by the competent authority and after careful examination of such documents and his merit position amongst the OBC/MOBC category, the concerned Selection Board considered the candidature of the said respondent No. 7 and accordingly, allowed his admission in the MBBS Course of 2018 in F.A. Ahmed Medical College, Barpeta of the State under the OBC category. 24. Mr. Saikia, however, submitted that at the time of issuance of Schedule III of the 2018 amendment Rules, the State Government had no knowledge that the States of Arunachal Pradesh as well as Mizoram are having their own Medical Colleges from the session 2018 and therefore, the Government of Assam has decided not to allow MBBS seats to those two States from the session 2019. Mr. Mr. Saikia also submitted that the State respondents have filled up the seats of MBBS UG Course 2018 in the Medical Colleges of the State category wise considering the merit positions of the candidates and therefore, the petitioners claim for any illegal admission in the said course, depriving them is without any basis. He submitted that the petitioners have failed to establish a case of violation of their rights, requiring interference of the Writ Court in that regard. 25. The respondent No.6 has filed his affidavit-in-opposition in the matter. Placing the copy of the Director of Medical Education, Assam respondent No.3 dated 12.08.2018 from his said affidavit, the respondent No.6 submitted that his Assam State Rank (NEET-UG, 2018) is 345-A with NEET Roll No.508316275 and not 345 as stated by the petitioners. He also stated that it is his father who preferred said WP(C) No.4156/2018 as his name did not reflect in the Assam State Merit List, 2018 and in pursuance of the orders of the Court passed in said WP(C) No.4156/2018, his name was included in the State Merit list of 2018 on the basis of his merit. Denying the allegation of the petitioners, respondent No.6 submitted that admitting the mistake that occurred during filling up of the application of NEET-UG 2018 and finding no other alternative, his father approached this Court in said WP(C) No.4156/2018, admitting the inadvertent mistake that occurred in filing up of the NEET Application Form, 2018 and the Court after considering the matter passed orders in the said petition on the basis of which he appeared for counseling and that on proper scrutiny of his documents and records, the concerned Selection Board considered his candidature and selected him for his admission in the 1st year MBBS-UG, 2018 Course under the State Quota of Assam at F.A.A. Medical College, Barpeta. Respondent No. 6 stated that neither he nor his father committed any fraud in filing said WP(C) No.4156/2018 and that the petitioners did not challenge the orders passed by the Court in said WP(C) No.4156/2018. 26. Respondent No. 7 has also filed his affidavit-in-opposition in the matter and stated that both of his parents belong to Chutia community, which is a recognized Other Backward Class community in the State of Assam and that the competent authority on 13.06.1990 itself issued a certificate to his father that he belongs to OBC Community. 26. Respondent No. 7 has also filed his affidavit-in-opposition in the matter and stated that both of his parents belong to Chutia community, which is a recognized Other Backward Class community in the State of Assam and that the competent authority on 13.06.1990 itself issued a certificate to his father that he belongs to OBC Community. Similarly the competent authority on 29.07.1992 issued a certificate in favour of his mother certifying that she belongs to OBC category. Said respondent No.7 has annexed those two OBC certificates issued by the competent authority in favour of his father and mother. It is also stated by him that as he was studying in Arunachal Pradesh, there was no requirement for his OBC certificate, and as such he did not obtain any certificate to that extent. Later he migrated to the Assam Higher Secondary Education Council, appeared in Higher Secondary Examination and while applying for the MBBS Course he had inadvertently shown himself as a general category, instead of an OBC community. Respondent No.7 further stated that during the time of counseling for OBC/MOBC category for admission in MBBS-UG, 2018 Course under the State Quota of Assam, being a NEET qualified candidate and as his name was in the State Merit List of 2018, he placed his relevant materials including all his testimonials and caste certificates of his parents and finding his genuineness that he belongs to OBC (Chutia) community, the concerned Selection Board considered his candidature as an OBC candidate and considering his merit positions amongst those category of candidates, accordingly, selected him for his admission in the 1st year MBBS-UG, 2018 Course under the State Quota at F.A.A. Medical College, Barpeta. The said respondent No.7 has annexed the two OBC certificates issued by the competent authority in favour of his parents and also the OBC Certificate issued to him by the competent authority on 11.11.2018. 27. Mr. S. Bartakur, learned counsel for the respondent No. 7 placed reliance on the Judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in the cases of Jasbhai Motibhai Desai Vs. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed, (1976) 1 SCC 671 , State of M.P. and another Vs. Pradeep Kumar and another, (2000) 7 SCC 372 and Choudhury Navin Hemabhai and another Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2011) 3 SCC 617 . 28. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed, (1976) 1 SCC 671 , State of M.P. and another Vs. Pradeep Kumar and another, (2000) 7 SCC 372 and Choudhury Navin Hemabhai and another Vs. State of Gujarat and another, (2011) 3 SCC 617 . 28. Perused the documents submitted by the petitioners as well as the respondents as annexures along with their petition as well as affidavits. Also perused the documents placed before the Court during the hearing of the matter. Considered the judgments cited by the parties. 29. From the order dated 22.09.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in SLP (C) No. 21223/2017 it is seen that in pursuance of an agreement between the State of Meghalaya and the State of Assam, the Government of Assam, since 1976 is allocating ten medical seats to the State of Meghalaya and it is the State of Meghalaya, who originally filed the Suit No.8/2017 against the State of Assam challenging its decision in allocating nil seats for the North-East States and not to admit any students from the NEC quota under the Central pool in MBBS/BDS Course. Considering the interest of the State of Meghalaya, the Hon'ble Apex Court by the said order dated 22.09.2017 directed the State of Assam to allocate ten seats in MBBS Course to the State of Meghalaya. Further, by order dated 30.01.2018, passed in said SLP (C) No. 21223/2017, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that said interim order dated 22.09.2017 passed earlier shall be treated as final by the respective parties wherein it was further observed that the said order shall not be treated as precedent for other cases. It is to be noted herein that the petitioners could not state anything about the said agreement between the State of Meghalaya and the State of Assam as to whether said agreement is still in force and in existence, pursuant to which the State of Assam, since 1976 use to allocate ten medical seats to the State of Meghalaya, the fact of which was also noted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 22.09.2017. Further by order dated, 30.01.2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not state anything about dissolving of said agreement between those two States, except that said order (order dated 22.09.2017) shall not be treated as precedent for other cases. 30. During the course of the argument Mr. D. Saikia, learned Addl. Further by order dated, 30.01.2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not state anything about dissolving of said agreement between those two States, except that said order (order dated 22.09.2017) shall not be treated as precedent for other cases. 30. During the course of the argument Mr. D. Saikia, learned Addl. AG, Assam placed a copy of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 08.02.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the original Suit No.8/2017 (State of Meghalaya Vs. State of Assam) wherein the State of Assam assured before the Court to amend the Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges of Assam, (Regulation of Admission into 1st year MBBS/BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 incorporating reservation of ten number of MBBS seats for the State of Meghalaya and the same is under process in the Health and Family Welfare Department of the Government of Assam and that in the affidavit filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court it was also placed before it that State of Assam vide letter No. No. HLB.170/2007/Pt/374 dated 18.08.2018 allotted ten numbers of MBBS seats of Assam to the State of Meghalaya for the Sessions 2018-19 in continuation of previous years. 31. In the said backdrop, on the request made by the Government of Meghalaya on 11.07.2018, the Government of Assam in the Health and Family Welfare Department took a decision to allocate ten MBBS seats to the State of Meghalaya for the academic session 2018- 19, which was communicated vide letter No. HLB.170/2007/Pt/374 dated 18.08.2018. 32. Though such decision was taken by the State Government in Health Department and communicated the same on 18.08.2018 during the time when counseling for admission in MBBS Course, 2018 was going on, in the opinion of the Court the said decision of the State Government, communication on 18.08.2018 cannot be considered to be a wrong one and illegal and that it cannot be viewed that the State Government by the said decision changed the rules of the game midway violating the 2018 Amended Rules. Moreover, the same is a policy decision of the State Government that has been taken without violating the established principles of law. Further, the petitioners are aware about the said agreement between the Government of Meghalaya and the Government of Assam. Considering the above, this Court is of the view that admission of the respondent Nos. Moreover, the same is a policy decision of the State Government that has been taken without violating the established principles of law. Further, the petitioners are aware about the said agreement between the Government of Meghalaya and the Government of Assam. Considering the above, this Court is of the view that admission of the respondent Nos. 8 to 17 in the MBBS Course in the Medical Colleges of the Government of Assam for the academic Session 2018-19, on the basis of their nomination made by the Government of Meghalaya in the Health and Family Welfare Department under Memo No. Health.106/2018/144 dated 21.08.2018 does not call for any interference. 33. Perused the orders passed in WP(C) No. 4156/2018 that was preferred by the father of the respondent No.6. It is seen that by order dated 25.06.2018 passed therein, the Court in the interim directed the Director of Medical Education, Assam allowing the respondent No.6 to participate in the counseling session for admission into MBBS/BDS course for the year 2018/19, that was scheduled from 18.09.2018 to 05.07.2018 being the first round of counseling with the observation that the same shall not be construed as a direction for admission in the said course. In the said order the Court also observed that the entry of 'Maharashtra' against the column of "State/Country of Eligibility" in his application shall not prevent the said respondent to appear in the counseling session noted above and that such admission shall be subject to the outcome of said writ petition and/or any further or other order to be passed in the said writ petition. 34. On 29.08.2018 the Court in said WP(C) No.4156/2018 observed that Mr. D. Saikia, learned counsel representing the State respondents in the said writ petition, clarified that the present respondent No.6 shall be subjected to a counseling on 31.08.2018 and he has to satisfy the authorities that he had undertaken his studies outside the State of Assam, as his father was posted outside the State, in course of his service and in the event, he satisfies the said aspect, said respondent would come within the exception to Rule 3(1)(c) of the Medical Colleges and Dental Colleges of Assam, (Regulation of Admission into 1st year MBBS/BDS Courses) Rules, 2017 and if he comes within the purview of the merit, for being offered a seat, a reasoned order thereon shall be passed by the authority. Considering the same, the Court by order dated 29.08.2018 accepted the said submission of the Senior State counsel and accordingly issued a direction strictly to that effect, disposing of the said writ petition. 35. It is also seen that the respondent No. 6 obtaining 419 marks, qualified the NEET-UG, 2018 and that the concerned Selection Committee on 31.08.2018 after scrutinizing the documents submitted by the respondent No.6, found that he had to undertake his studies outside the State of Assam as his father, who is an employee of ONGC, was posted outside Assam during the period from May, 2001 to May, 2016 and that as the said respondent satisfied the eligibility criteria of the exception to the Clause 3(1)(c) of said 2017 Rules. Therefore, the said Selection Committee on 31.08.2018 being convinced and considering his merit position, took a decision regarding his admission in MBBS Course in the State allowing him to take his admission in the 1st year MBBS Course in F.A. Ahmed Medical College, Barpeta during the Session 2018-19 and to that extent the Director of Medical Education, Assam and Chairman 1st year MBBS/BDS Courses Selection Committee, 2018 vide No.DME/UG/80/2018/14049 dated 31.08.2018 issued an Office Order. Mr. Sakia, learned Addl. A.G. during the course of the argument of the case placed a copy of a list reflecting the names of the candidates of MBBS/BDS counseling, Session, 2018 of unreserved category wherein the name of the respondent No.6 with his Roll No. 508316275 was reflected in the State Rank of 345-A with the signatures of the members of the Selection Committee. The said respondent also placed before the Court a public notice issued by the CBSE vide No. CBSE/NEET/2018 dated 15.05.2018 and showed that the CBSE by the said notice on the request of the candidates allowed the correction facility in the field of (i) date of birth, (ii) category of the candidate and (iii) status of persons with disability, with the observation that no correction will be allowed after declaration of result of NEET-UG, 2018 and that such correction facility is available from 15.05.2018 to 05:00 pm of 18.05.2018. It is seen that said respondent No. 6 on 19.05.2018 at 04.39 pm made a request for change in State of Eligibility. 36. It is seen that said respondent No. 6 on 19.05.2018 at 04.39 pm made a request for change in State of Eligibility. 36. The OBC Certificates issued by the competent authority to the parents of Respondent No. 7 on 13.06.1990 and 29.07.1992 that they belong to Chutia community, a recognized Other Backward Class community in the State of Assam are not under challenge. It is seen that the concerned Selection Committee during the counseling for admission into MBBS/BDS course for the Session 2018-19 of OBC/MOBC candidates considering the caste certificates of his parents, found that the said respondent No. 7 belongs to OBC (Chutia) community and that he had secured merit position of 1112 in the Assam State Merit Lists of NEET-UG, 2018. Considering his such candidature as an OBC candidate the concerned Selection Committee selected him for his admission in the 1st year MBBS-UG, 2018 Course under the State Quota at F.A. Ahmed Medical College, Barpeta under the OBC/MOBC category. Further the OBC Certificate issued to the said respondent No.7 by the competent authority on 11.11.2018 is also not under challenge. 37. The petitioners claimed themselves to be of unreserved category and their Merit Positions in the Assam State Merit List of NEET-UG, 2018 were at 347, 348, 349, 351 and 353 securing 419, 418, 418, 418 and 418 marks respectively. The concerned Selection Committee, as noted above, placed the respondent No. 6 at Srl. No. 345-A in the MBBS/BDS Counseling, Session 2018, under Unreserved Category. Moreover, he was considered by the concerned Selection Committee pursuant to the orders of the Court dated 25.06.2018 and 29.08.2018 passed in WP(C) No. 4156/2018, which are not under challenge. Further, the respondent No. 7 had shown before the Selection Committee that he belongs to OBC (Chutia) community through his father and mother, for which he was selected under OBC/MOBC category during the counseling of OBC/MOBC candidates. Other OBC/MOBC candidates whose names are in the State Merit List did not challenge his selection. It is also seen that the State Respondents while giving admission in MBBS Course 2018 under the State Quota did not compromise with merits of the candidates. 38. Considering the same, the admissions of the respondent Nos. Other OBC/MOBC candidates whose names are in the State Merit List did not challenge his selection. It is also seen that the State Respondents while giving admission in MBBS Course 2018 under the State Quota did not compromise with merits of the candidates. 38. Considering the same, the admissions of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in the 1st year MBBS-UG, 2018 Course under the State Quota at F.A.A. Medical College, Barpeta under the unreserved category and OBC/MOBC category respectively, in the opinion of this Court does not call for any interference. 39. It is also seen that the Court did not pass any interim order in favour of the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 6 to 17 have completed a year of their MBBS Course. However, it is observed that the petitioner No.1 secured State Rank of 347 with the score of 419 marks as that of the respondent No.6 and admission was already given to the candidate at Srl. No.346 during mop-up round. Said Assam State Merit List of NEET-UG, 2018 under the unreserved category was published prior to the orders dated 25.06.2018 and 29.08.2018 passed by the Court in WP(C) No.4156/2018 in favour of the respondent. In the orders dated 25.06.2018 and 29.08.2018 there is no such order of the Court directing the State respondents to place the petitioner in the State Merit List. The official respondents failed to place any reason in placing the petitioner at State Rank of 345-A ahead of petitioner No.1 when both of them scored same number i.e. 419. It is also seen that petitioners No. 2 to 5 did not challenge regarding the merit position of the petitioner No.1. As such, the decision of the State respondents in placing the respondent No. 6 in the State Rank of 345-A is without any valid reason depriving the petitioner No.1 from her admission in the 1st year MBBS Course of 2018 under the State Quota under unreserved category. Though the admission of the respondent Nos. As such, the decision of the State respondents in placing the respondent No. 6 in the State Rank of 345-A is without any valid reason depriving the petitioner No.1 from her admission in the 1st year MBBS Course of 2018 under the State Quota under unreserved category. Though the admission of the respondent Nos. 6 and 7 in the 1st year MBBS-UG, 2018 Course under the State Quota at F.A.A. Medical College, Barpeta shall remain intact but considering the matter in the entirety with regard to the arbitrary action of the State respondents noted above, depriving the petitioner No.1 from her admission in the 1st year MBBS Course for the Session 2018 under the State Quota, therefore, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Dolly Chhanda Vs. Chairman, JEE and Others, (2005) 9 SCC 779 , the State respondents are directed to give admission to the petitioner No.1 Ms. Priyakshi Rajkhowa in the 1st year MBBS-UG, 2018 Course, in any of the State Medical Colleges of Assam, in the current academic year of 2019-20. However, the petitioner Nos. 2 to 5 are not entitled for any such relief as the admission of the respondent Nos. 6 to 17 have not been found to be illegal. 40. For the reasons above, this petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to cost.