JUDGMENT : D.P. CHOUDHURY, J. Challenge has been made to the inaction of the Opp. Parties in not giving admission to the petitioner who is a member of Scheduled Caste category into Master’s Courses in Veterinary Science in the year 2015-16. FACTS : 2. The factual context as enumerated lea ding to the case of the petitioner is that the opp. Party-University has invited applications from eligible candidates for taking admission into P.G. Programme for the year 2015-16 vide Annexure-1. Clause 2.2.1 of the prospectus indicates that a candidate must have passed Bachelor Degree of Examination securing overall grade point Average (OGPA) of at least 6.60/10.00 in ten point scale, 3.25/5.00 in fire-point scale, 2.60/4.00 in four point scale for General category whereas for SC/ST/ Physically challenged (PC) candidates, the said requirement is OGPA at 5.60/10.00, 2,75/5.00, 2.20/4.00 respectively. 3. It is stated that the petitioner belongs to S.C. category, being eligible in all respects and having passed B.V. Sc. & A.H. from College of Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry, Bhubaneswar securing OGPA 5.903 points out of 10 points applied for taking admission in M.V.Sc. (Master Degree in Veterinary science). Thereafter opp. Party no.2 sent letter inviting the petitioner by assigning intimation slip at sl.no.67 under general category and sl.no.12 under S.C. category to attend counseling on 25.8.2015, but unfortunately he was told at the counseling that since he has not secured OGPA at least 6.60 out of 10 points, he could not be given admission in M.V.Sc. courses. It is also alleged inter alia that the opp. Parties invited the attention of the petitioner to clause 2.2.3 of the prospectus which does not allow the petitioner to take admission. It is stated in the petition that such clause 2.2.3 read with clause 2.2.1(h) provide that the candidate has to secure at least 6.60 out of 10 points in the subject applied for, but never it speaks about relaxation for the candidate of S.C./S.T. category. 4. It is stated that during 2014-15 no such clause 2.2.3 as appearing in the prospectus 2015-16 was there. It is mentioned in the prospectus 2014-15 vide clause 2.2.3 that minimum percentage of marks/OGPA and GPA as indicated shall not be applicable to SC/ST candidates, State sponsored candidate, OUAT in-service candidates, foreign candidates and candidates sponsored by ICAR. 4. It is stated that during 2014-15 no such clause 2.2.3 as appearing in the prospectus 2015-16 was there. It is mentioned in the prospectus 2014-15 vide clause 2.2.3 that minimum percentage of marks/OGPA and GPA as indicated shall not be applicable to SC/ST candidates, State sponsored candidate, OUAT in-service candidates, foreign candidates and candidates sponsored by ICAR. But the opposite parties omitted in clause 2.2.3 of prospectus for 2015-16 as to relaxation of percentage of OGPA for the students belonging to S.T./S.C. category and physically challenged students. This is clear violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. 5. It is further stated that ICAR for Master degree programme has clearly prescribes that candidate must have passed Bachelor of Veterinary Science by securing OGPA at least 6.60/10 in ten point scale, 3.25/5.00 in five-point scale, 2.60/4.00 in four-point scale for general category and for SC/ST and physically challenged candidates, the said requirement of OGPA should be 5.60/10.00, 2.75/5.00 and 2.20/4.00 respectively. When ICAR has prescribed such clause, under no circumstances clause 2.2.3 of the impugned prospectus disallowing the petitioner to take admission is absolutely illegal and against law. The petitioner made representation to consider his case, but since no action was taken, he knocked the door of the Court. 6. Per contra, counter affidavit is filed by the opp. Parties. It is submitted in the counter affidavit that the prospectus 2015-16 for admission in M. V. Sc. course was issued by the opp. party no.2 after same being approved by the academic Council, OUAT vide resolution No.6994 dated 26.5.2015, for which benefit under 2015-16 prospectus cannot be raised. Apart from this it is stated that the prospectus for 2015-16 has been issued by following the Rules and Regulations contained therein. It is also mentioned that since the admission for the academic year 2015-16 has already been completed since 25.8.2015 and midterm examination has already started, the petitioner’s claim becomes infructuous. 7. It is stated by the opp. Parties that the petitioner was intimated to attend the counseling for M.V.Sc. degree admission on the basis of the mark secured in the qualifying examination as per sub-clause 2.2.1(a) and (b), but since he has not secured the requisite percentage in the 10.00 scale in the subject study as per clause 2.2.1 (b) of the prospectus, he was not allowed to take admission. degree admission on the basis of the mark secured in the qualifying examination as per sub-clause 2.2.1(a) and (b), but since he has not secured the requisite percentage in the 10.00 scale in the subject study as per clause 2.2.1 (b) of the prospectus, he was not allowed to take admission. He was called to attend the counseling basing on his entitlement criteria vide sub-clause 2.2.1(a) of the prospectus 2015-16, but he has not qualified under clause 2.2.1(b) for which he was not allowed to take admission. As the action of the opp. Parties is according to Rules and Regulations of the University with approval of the academic Council, the petitioner has no right to claim any admission. So, he submits to dismiss the writ application. SUBMISSIONS : 8. Mr. H.N. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the opp. Parties is arbitrary, illegal and reservation policy of the State. He further submitted that the prospectus of 2014-15 has taken care of the S.C./S.T. and physically challenged category students by inserting Clause 2.2.3 where minimum marks as required in Overall Grade Point Average (OGPA) and the subject of study has been made relaxable. He further submitted that in the prospectus of 2015-16 the Clause 2.2.3 has made relaxation of almost all category of student except S.C./S.T. and physically challenged students. He submitted that because of relaxation of the mark on overall grade as appearing in the Clause 2.2.1(a) in the prospectus of 2015-16, the opposite parties have forgotten about relaxation in the subject of study as per Rule 2.2.(1)(a). But the opposite parties have forgotten the fact that Clause 2.2.3 in the prospectus of 2015-16 has omitted relaxation of marks in Rule 2.2.(1)(b) in the subject of study unlike the said relevant provision maintained in the prospectus of 2014-15. 9. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is relaxation in OGPA for the SC/ST category students and same facility has been given in clause 2.2.1(a), whereas in the impugned advertisement clause 2.2.1(b) has been introduced stating that 60% marks of OGPA or 6.60 in 10 points in the subject of study is must for Master Programme, clearly depriving the right of the students of SC/ST category by showing such clause applicable to all category of students. According to him introducing such clause (b) is not in consonance with the fundamental rights of the member of SC/ST, for which such clause not only takes out the rights of the petitioner to take admission, but also has caused serious injustice to the petitioner and similarly situated students. He further submitted that under Article 15 of the Constitution the member of the SC/ST should be given benefit by special legislation or provision in all admission and employment, but said provision has not been taken care by the opp. Parties. So, he prayed to allow the writ application by directing the opp. Parties to give admission to the petitioner in M.V.Sc. courses. 10. Mr. P.M. Pattajoshi, learned counsel for the opp. Parties submitted that the University has right to frame policy to give admission to the candidates in each year and the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the same. He further submitted that as per the policy formulated during 2014-15 prospectus was issued showing eligibility criteria for giving admission to M.V.Sc. courses during 2014-15. Similarly, the University has made policy for promoting quality of study, for which it has kept some percentage of mark in OGPA in the subject of study to which the students would apply. So, it is submitted by Mr. Pattajoshi that the petitioner having not met the criteria as per clause 2.2.1(b), the action of the opp. Parties is valid and proper. He further submitted that the policy of the academic counsel has been reflected by issuing prospectus in 2015-16 and for such policy matter, the Court should be slow by entering into controversy and the Court should allow the opp. parties to go ahead with the admission of the students. He also submitted that as per the settled position of law the Court should be reluctant to interfere with the affairs and policy of the University as they intend to promote the quality of education. So, he submitted to dismiss the writ application. POINT OF CONSIDERATION: Whether the petitioner is entitled to take admission in M. V. Sc. First year Programme by relaxing clause 2.2.1(b) of the prospectus for the year 2015-16? DISCUSSIONS: 11. It is admitted fact that the petitioner has applied for his admission to P.G. course for M.V.Sc. and A.H. Degree for the year 2015-16. It is also not dispute that the opp. First year Programme by relaxing clause 2.2.1(b) of the prospectus for the year 2015-16? DISCUSSIONS: 11. It is admitted fact that the petitioner has applied for his admission to P.G. course for M.V.Sc. and A.H. Degree for the year 2015-16. It is also not dispute that the opp. Parties have issued the prospectus for 2014-15 and 2015-16. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner was called to counseling during 2015-16, but was not given admission. 12. It is the settled principle of law that the University can make policy for admission to different courses and such policy must meet the provisions of the statutes and the Constitution. In the instant case for admission to different courses, the opp. Party-University has issued prospectus showing the criteria for admission into Master Programme 2014-15. The same is depicted for better appreciation:- “2.2.1 For Masters’ Programme: (a) Candidate must have secured 55% of marks in aggregate or Overall Grade Point Average (OGPA) 6.00 in 10 point scale. (b) 55% marks or OGPA of 6.00 in 10 point scale in the subject of study.” At the same time clause 2.2.3 of the prospectus 2014-15 has made the following provision:- “Clause:-2.2.3. The requirement of minimum percentage of marks/OGPA/GPA as indicated above shall not be applicable to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe candidate, State Government sponsored candidates, OUAT in-service candidates, Foreign candidates and candidates sponsored by ICAR.” But in the next year 2015-16 the above clauses were replaced with new Clauses as hereunder:- “2.2.1 For Masters’ Programme:- (a) Candidate must have passed Bachelor degree examination securing an Overall Grade Point Average (OGPA) of at least 6.60/10.00 in ten point scale, 3.25/5.00 in five point scale, 2.60/4.00 in four-point scale for General category whereas for SC/ST/physically Challenged (PC) candidates, the said requirement is an OGPA of at least 5.60/10.00, 2.75/5.00, 2.20/4.00, respectively. In other cases, where grade points are not awarded and only marks are awarded, the candidate must have secured at least 60% marks for General category, whereas for SC/ST/PC categories the requirement is 50% marks. (Please note that equivalence between OGPA and % marks will not be acceptable). (b) 60% marks or OGPA of 6.60 in 10 point scale in the subject of study. 2.2.3:-The requirement of minimum percentage of marks/OGPA/GPA as indicated above shall not be applicable to State Government sponsored candidates, OUAT in-service candidates, Foreign candidates and candidates sponsored by ICAR.” 13. (Please note that equivalence between OGPA and % marks will not be acceptable). (b) 60% marks or OGPA of 6.60 in 10 point scale in the subject of study. 2.2.3:-The requirement of minimum percentage of marks/OGPA/GPA as indicated above shall not be applicable to State Government sponsored candidates, OUAT in-service candidates, Foreign candidates and candidates sponsored by ICAR.” 13. The aforesaid provisions makes it clear that there was relaxation for the candidate of SC/ST category while applying for the Master Programme in both aggregate or in the subject of study during 2014-15. In the impugned prospectus 2015-16 similar clause 2.2.3 is not there. The aforesaid provision Clause 2.2.3 of prospectus 2015-16 has omitted dispensing with the minimum percentage for the candidates of SC/ST and physically challenged category. It is obvious that such omission has been made for the purpose of relaxation as already made for such category students in clause 2.2.1(a) of the prospectus 2015-16. When a student is allowed to take admission in Master Programme he has to qualify in clause (a) and (b) of clause 2.2.1 of the prospectus. When there is relaxation for the category of student of SC/ST and physically challenged in their marks in aggregate as per the above paragraph it is not understood what is the policy for not awarding such benefit while keeping the minimum marks in the subject of study. This anomaly was not present in the prospectus 2014-15 because presence of clause 2.2.3 therein was taking care of all category of students except general category. Learned counsel for the opp. Parties and the counter affidavit are silent as to omission of such relaxation in the subject of study for the candidate of SC/ST and physically challenged. No document is produced by the opp. Parties showing formulation of policy for omission of relaxation for the students of SC/ST or physically challenged in the subject of study. 14. Article 14 of the Constitution speaks as follows: “Article 14:-Equality before law.-The State shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws within the territory of India.” Article 15 of the Constitution speaks as follows:- “Article 15:-Prohibition of discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex or place of birth.-(1) The State shall not discriminate against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them. (2) No citizen shall, on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of t hem, be subject to any disability, liability, restriction or condition with regard to- (a) access to shops, public restaurants, hotels and places of public entertainment; or (b) the use of wells, tanks, bathing ghats, roads and places of public resort maintained wholly or partly out of State funds or dedicated to the use of general public. (3) Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any special provision for women and children. [(4) Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes.] [(5) Nothing in this article or in sub-clause(g) of clause (1) of article 19 shall prevent the State from making any special provision, by law, for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes or the Scheduled Tribes in so far as such special provisions relate to their admission to educational institutions including private educational institutions, whether aided or unaided by the State, other than the minority educational institutions referred to in clause(1) of article 30.]” 15. From both the provisions it is clear that the members of the SC/ST should be given relaxation in higher education and in order to meet such requirement the State have been allowed enormous power to prepare special legislation. For that also the University Grant Commission has issued Regulations at different occasions keeping reservation policy for upliftment of the students of these categories to sub-serve justice for members of such category. Keeping in view of this settled Constitutional provisions and the provisions of U.G.C. Act, the minimum requirement in aggregate mark and subject in study has been waived in the prospectus 2014-15. Same is also reflected in clause 2.2.1(a) of the prospectus 2015-16, but sub-clause (b) is left out by the opp. parties creating such hurdle for taking admission by the students of SC/ST categories. It appears that for physically challenged candidates there is provision in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 to keep reservation of seats for admission in educational institutions. 16. parties creating such hurdle for taking admission by the students of SC/ST categories. It appears that for physically challenged candidates there is provision in the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 to keep reservation of seats for admission in educational institutions. 16. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the considered view that by omitting any relaxation in the marks secured in the subject of study for the students of SC/ST, sub-clause (b) of clause 2.2.1 of the impugned prospectus has become inoperative. In our opinion similar relaxation as in sub-clause (a) of clause 2.2.1 should be also applicable for the category of SC/ST and physically challenged in securing OGPA in the subject of study. Therefore, we are of the view that clause (b) is to be read with clause (a) by applying same relaxation in the subject of study for the year 2015-16. The point is answered accordingly. CONCLUSION: 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, it is found that the opp. Parties by omitting the relaxation for the students of SC/ST and physically challenged category in the subject of study has not only deprived the petitioner from getting justice, but also violated the Constitutional provision meant for the reservation category. We have already observed in the aforesaid paragraphs that similar relaxation as in clause 2.2.1(a) of the prospectus is also applicable to clause 2.2.1(b) for the category of students of SC/ST and physically challenged. We are, therefore, of the view that the petitioner is eligible for admission by securing mark OGPA 5.90 for the subject of study in the event of relaxation of sub-clause (b) in the line of sub-clause (a) of clause 2.2.1 of the prospectus 2015-16. We are aware that the admission for the year 2015-16 is over, but by interim order we have directed to keep a seat in SC/ST category vacant and it has also kept as submitted by learned counsel for the opp. Parties. We, therefore, direct the opp. Parties to relax the sub-clause (b) in the light of sub-clause (a) of clause 2.2.1 of the prospectus for 2015-16 and allow the petitioner to get admission into the same. He will also be given chance to clear the back papers in the semesters. The writ application is allowed. I. MAHANTY J. : I Agree.