Judgment R.C.P. Sinha, J. In this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the prayer of the petitioner is to issue a direction to respondent no. 3, the Principal of the Commerce College, Patna to admit him in the LL. B. Part-I Class of the Academic Session 1985-86. 2. The Petitioner passed the Bachelor of Arts examination of the year 1984-85 in second division from L.P. Sahi College, Patna affiliated to the Magadh University Respondent no. 3 not an advertisement made in 'the Aaj', which is a daily news paper on 13.8.1986 inviting application from the intending candidates for admission in LL. B. Part-I of 1985-86 Session on the prescribed application from. The applications were to reach the college office by 30th of August, 1986. A photostat copy of the said advertisement is Annexure-1 to the writ application. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioner, who passed the B.A. examination (Pass course) from new course and had obtained 49.6% marks, applied for admission in LL. B. Part-I class, On prescribed from within time, but he was not selected for admission although the candidates obtaining below 48% marks were admitted. It has been stated in the writ application that subsequently the petitioner learnt that the students passing from old course were admitted in LL. B. Part-I Class. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 wherein it has been stated that in the State of Bihar. Educational Carriculam has undergone a change inasmuch as 11 years school course two years in Intermadiate course and two years Degree course (total 15 years) commonly known as 'Old Course two years Intermediate course and three years Degree course (total 15 years) known as 'New Course'. In the Universities of the State of Bihar the students appearing in the Second year Degree Course Examination under New Course (i.e. 0 plus 2 plus 2 years) are given degree known as ‘B.A. Pass course’. As the number of applications of old course candidates were much more than the number of seats available in the College criteria was fixed that those who had completed 15 years education in total would be first admitted and if the seats would remain vacant, then the students of the new pass course would be considered for admission. As the number of applications of old course candidates were much more than the number of seats available in the College criteria was fixed that those who had completed 15 years education in total would be first admitted and if the seats would remain vacant, then the students of the new pass course would be considered for admission. On the criteria so fixed all the available seats were filled up by the candidates who had passed the old course. Even some of the old course candidates could Dot be admitted for want of seats, the intending applicants, namely, the candidates, who had passed under B.A. examination (New Pass Course) the new course, could not be admitted in LL. B. Part-I Class, for non-availability of Seats, and if seats would have remained vacant, the petitioner's case along with others could have been considered by him and would have been admitted, if found legible on the basis of the marks obtained at the B.A. examination ('New Pass Course') 4. The allegation of the petitioner is that the students having lower marks than the petitioner have been admitted in LL. B. Part-I Class. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that it was not indicated in the advertisement (Annexure-1) that the preference would be given to the old course candidates over the graduates of New Pass Course. It has also been submitted that there being no difference between the students of new course and the old course in the matter of admission in LL. B. Part-I, equal treatment should have been given to the candidates of both the categories, but the respondents-authorities have discriminated against the petitioner by not admitting him in LL.B. Part-I class without any reasonable basis and as such it is a clear case of hostile discrimination. On the other hand, it has been contended by the learned Advocate General that it is not a case of hostile discrimination; rather the classification made by respondent no. 3 is based on rational basis which is permisshile. In support of his argument learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mr. Vinay Rampal Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir but the facts of the aforesaid case differ from the facts of the instant case and as such the case referred to above has no application to this case. 5. Vinay Rampal Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir but the facts of the aforesaid case differ from the facts of the instant case and as such the case referred to above has no application to this case. 5. From the facts stated above, it is clear that the number of applications were much more than the number of seats, and hence a criteria had to be fixed for selecting candidates for admission, and according to the case of the respondents, the criteria fixed was that old course pass candidates, would be given preference over the new course pass candidates, as the old course candidates had to spend fifteen years in acquiring B.A. degree, whereas the new course students have to spend only fourteen, years for obtaining B.A. degree (Pass Course). In my opinion, this criteria cannot be said to be arbitrary and unreasonable and as such there is no question of hostile discrimination. It is well settled proposition, of law that equality is for equals, that is to say, those, who are similarly circumstanced are entitled to an equal treatment. The guarantee of equality does not imply-every body though differently circumstanced should be treated alike and the same inference should be made applicable in spite of differences in their circumstances and conditions. 6. It has been stated on behalf of the respondents that the Session of 1985-86 is practically over and that no useful purpose would be served if this application is allowed. 7. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any merit in this application. Accordingly, it is dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs. However, it is made clear that if the petitioner now makes an application for admission in LL. B. Part-I class in the present session the authorities would consider his application in accordance with law. Application dismissed.