JUDGMENT

RANGANATH MISRA, J.:— These are two appeals by special leave and are directed against a common judgment of the Orissa High Court dated August 3, 1988, whereby the High Court directed the two respondents and another to be admitted to the two year inservice medical post-graduate course for the session 1988-89.

2. The Prospectus published by the State Government indicated that the total number of seats were 113 out of which 11 seats were reserved for scheduled castes candidate while 6 were so reserved for scheduled tribe candidates. Paragraph 5.3 of the Prospectus indicated the various classifications and it was stated : therein number of general seats to be filled up by inservice doctors of, Government of Orissa is 69.

3. The note under paragraph 1.2 of the Prospectus definied inservice doctor as "one who is in the employment of the Government of Or" Government of Orissa Public Sector Undertakings and other Organisations under the Orissa Government and Government of India. This includes all categories of employment like ad hoc, temporary, contract regular or substantive on the date of application. Paragraph 5.5 laid down that in case of non- availability of candidates for any of the reserved seats, the same will be filled up by general candidates. As against the 23 seats reserved for scheduled caste and scheduled tribe candidates, 10 were available and 13, therefore, were to revert to, the general category.

4. Six seats, as it appears from paragraph 5.3, were originally reserved for candidates belonging to public sector undertakings and other organisations of Government of Orissa and Medical Officers who are permanent residents of Orissa and serving under Government of India and their public sector undertakings. When 13 seats became available the State Government allotted-8 out of them to in service doctors under, Government of India and their public sector undertakings. Three of the candidates who were in service doctors of Government of Orissa challenged the diversion of 8 out of the 13 reserved seats to Government of India and their public sector undertakings by filing separate writ petitions. The High Court considered the provisions of the Prospectus and the respective stands taken by the parties before it and ultimately held that the 8 reserved seats which reverted to the general category could not have been filled up by in service doctors under Government of India or their public sector Undertakings.

5. The conclusion of the High Court is Unassailable. The combined effect of the provisions contained in paragraphs 5.3 and 5 of the Prospectus is that 69 out of the 113 seats were intended to be filled up by in service doctors of Government of Orissa and these were the general seats. When reservation made for any of the categories indicated in paragraph 5.3 in respect of 44 out of the total 113 seats did not work out and any seat remained unfilled, such seat was to be treated as a general seat coming within the last group in paragraph 5.3 of the Prospectus. General seat -having not been explained or defined anywhere in the prospectus, the High Court was right in its analysis and conclusion. Of the 13 seats which came from the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe categories, therefore, would have come to the in service doctors of Government of Orissa and the number of 69 in the Prospectus should have gone up to 82. The State Government having bound itself by the terms of the Prospectus was not justified in allotting 8out of the 13 seats to a category other than the general category.

6. Counsel for the appellant-State produced before us the merit list prepared in terms of the Prospectus and contended that the 8 candidates had secured more marks than the respondents and had been selected on the basis of their own respective merit apart from being allottees under a specified category. He referred to paragraph 5.3.3 of the Prospectus to support this submission. That paragraph states that candidates claiming eligibility for admis