JUDGMENT : BISWAJIT MOHANTY, J. The petitioner has filed this writ application with a prayer to direct the opp. parties to give her admission in P.G. Course of Art History under M.V.A. Stream of Utkal University of Culture, Bhubaneswar during the academic session 2017-18. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she is a graduate from Utkal University of Culture. She has completed her Bachelor’s Degree in Visual Arts securing 1st Class with distinction in the year 2017 from B.K.College of Art and Craft, a Government College affiliated to Utkal University of Culture (opp. party No.1). For admitting the students into various courses including that of P.G. Course in Art History leading to award of M.V.A. degree during academic session 2017-18, the opp. party No.1 released its Prospectus under Annexure-1. Accordingly, the petitioner applied for getting admitted into P.G. course of Art History. On 1.7.2017 vide Annexure-2, the opp. party No.3 published the names of eligible candidates of the different Departments for taking the aptitude test. The name of the petitioner along with another candidate were shown in the said list against the Department of Art History. Accordingly, the petitioner and other candidate/applicant were allowed to take aptitude test on 7.7.2017. Both the above noted candidates passed the aptitude test and were found eligible to take admission. Notwithstanding all this when vide Annexure-3 dated 10.7.2017, the opp. parties 2 and 3 published the list of candidates provisionally selected to take admission in different P.G. Departments for the 1st semester of the academic session 201718, in the said notification, the P.G. Department of Art History was not there. In such background, the petitioner has filed the present writ application with the earlier noted prayer. 3. Pursuant to notice by Special Messenger on 26.7.2017, counter affidavit was filed by the opp. parties on 11.10.2017. In the counter, stand of the opp. parties is that Note-I of the Prospectus under Annexure-1 makes it clear that in the event of student strength becoming less than five for regular courses, the University reserved the right to discontinue such course for the session 2017-18. parties on 11.10.2017. In the counter, stand of the opp. parties is that Note-I of the Prospectus under Annexure-1 makes it clear that in the event of student strength becoming less than five for regular courses, the University reserved the right to discontinue such course for the session 2017-18. In the instant case, since only two candidates including the petitioner were found successful in the aptitude test and thus though they were eligible to take admission, yet in view of the above mentioned Note-I of the Prospectus, the name of the petitioner has not been reflected in the merit list for admission pertaining to the year 2017-18. Thus, the petitioner has not been allowed to take admission. Their further stand is that there are no regular Lecturers in the University to take classes in Art History and in past, teaching was done through Guest Lecturers and when only two candidates were found eligible to take admission in the P.G. Department of Art History for the year 2017-18, it was decided that hiring of Guest Lecturers would not be economically viable. 4. In rejoinder to the counter, petitioner has stated that the stand of opp. parties is discriminatory because in other departments like Mardal, Violin, Flute, Sitar and Drama though there were less than five eligible students yet they have been allowed to take admission in the 1st semester P.G. Course in those Departments. With regard to plea of economic non-viability, stand of the petitioner is such a plea is unreasonable and unfair as in P.G. Department of Violin three students have been admitted and in the P.G. Department of Sitar, only one student has been admitted through both these Departments are being managed through Guest Faculties only. While the Department of Violin has two Guest Faculties, the Department of Sitar has got one Guest Faculty like the P.G. Department of Art History. Further, the one Guest Faculty in the Department of Art History is teaching only eight numbers of third semesters students. In such background, the plea of the petitioner is that refusal to give her admission in the Department of Art History is purely discriminatory and the plea of economic non-viability has no legs to stand. 5. The opp. parties have filed counter to the rejoinder reiterating their earlier stand made in the earlier counter relying on Note-I of the Prospectus and their plea relating to economic non-viability. 5. The opp. parties have filed counter to the rejoinder reiterating their earlier stand made in the earlier counter relying on Note-I of the Prospectus and their plea relating to economic non-viability. However, they have admitted that one Gust Faculty, namely, Dr. Saubhagya Pathy is available to take classes in the Department of Art History. With regard to Departments of Violin and Sitar, their stand is that each of such Department has got one Guest Lecturer. Further, they have issued advertisement for recruitment of two regular Lecturers in Instrumental Music vide Annexure-H for the above noted two subjects. In such background, the admissions were given to less than five students in the Departments of Violin and Sitar. Lastly, they have stated that in view of the Academic Calender, the petitioner cannot be admitted at this belated stage. 6. Heard Mr. A.K.Swain-1, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.K.Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel for opp. parties. 7. Mr. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this is a case where the petitioner despite being a brilliant student, who has secured 72% of marks in B.V.A. has been made a victim of gross discrimination. While the petitioner along with another despite being found eligible to take admission, were not given admission in P.G. Department of Art History with one Guest faculty, however, three students have been admitted in the Department of Violin and one student has been admitted in the Department of Sitar though both the Departments are being managed by one Guest faculty each. He also submitted that one thing is clear that on the date the students were admitted in the Departments of Violin and Sitar, those two Departments were without any regular Lecturers. Therefore, there was no earthly reason in depriving the petitioner in taking admission in P.G. Department of Art History. He further submitted that the very fact that the opp. parties have allowed admission of less than five students in the Departments of Violin and Sitar, the same would clearly show that the authorities have thus either ignored Note-I of the Prospectus under Annexure-1 or have relaxed its requirements. Therefore, there is no reason for not extending the same benefit to the petitioner. In this context, he also submitted that even in the Departments of Mardal, Flute and Drama, less than five students have been admitted. Therefore, there is no reason for not extending the same benefit to the petitioner. In this context, he also submitted that even in the Departments of Mardal, Flute and Drama, less than five students have been admitted. Therefore, denying the benefit of admission to the petitioner in the P.G. Department of Art History is a case of gross discrimination which attracts Article-14 of the Constitution of India. According to him, when the Departments of Flute, Sitar and Drama can run with one student each, the plea of economic viability with regard to admission in the Department of Art History for which two students were found eligible, is highly unfair and unjust. With regard to delay caused, he submitted that in this case notice was issued to opp. parties by Special Messenger on 26.7.2017 and such notices were served on 28.7.2017. However, the opp. parties filed their first counter only on 11.10.2017. Therefore, they cannot take the plea of delay to defeat the claim of the petitioner. 8. Mr.Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel reiterated the stand taken by the opp. parties in their counter affidavit dated 11.10.2017 and counter to the rejoinder filed on 18.10.2017. He submitted that no illegality has been committed since less than five students were selected for the P.G. course of Art History. He also submitted that hiring Guest Lecturer to teach only two successful candidates including the petitioner would not be economically viable. With regard to the Departments of Violin and Sitar, he submitted that Government has sanctioned two posts of regular Lecturers in Instrumental Music vide Annexure-F and application for such posts have been received pursuant to advertisement and selection would be finalized very soon. It is in such background, admissions were given to less than five students in the Departments of Violin and Sitar. Lastly, he submitted that the academic session has started from 18.7.2017, therefore, at this belated stage, the petitioner cannot be admitted. 9. Before addressing the different contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, let us see what are the undisputed facts. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner has completed her Bachelor’s Degree in Visual Art from Utkal University of Culture (opp. party No.1) securing 1st Class with distinction in the year 2017 from a Government College, which is affiliated to opp. party No.1. The opp. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner has completed her Bachelor’s Degree in Visual Art from Utkal University of Culture (opp. party No.1) securing 1st Class with distinction in the year 2017 from a Government College, which is affiliated to opp. party No.1. The opp. parties have admitted that the petitioner along with another were found successful in the aptitude test and thus were eligible to take admission in P.G. programme in Art History leading to awarding of M.V.A. Degree. It is not disputed that P.G. Programme in Art History forms part of regular course. It is also not disputed that one Guest faculty, namely, Dr. Saubhagya Pathy is taking class in the P.G. Department of Art History and teaching eight 2nd year students. It is also not disputed that the opp. party No.1 has admitted three students in the Department of Violin and one student in the Department of Sitar. From the counter of the opp. parties to the rejoinder of the petitioner, it is clear that till the date of filing of such counter on 18.10.2017, the said two Departments of Violin and Sitar are being run by one guest faculty each. Further, as per the Prospectus under Annexure-1, the last date for admission for 1st Semester of M.V.A. programme was 31.7.2017 and the date for commencement of classes for 1st Semester has been shown to be 1.8.2017. Thus, it is clear that from 1.8.2017 till 18.10.2017, the Departments of Violin and Sitar are being run by one single Guest Faculty each. Above factual narration shows three students have been admitted in the Department of Violin and one student has been admitted in the Department of Sitar though these Departments are being managed by one Guest Faculty each. In such background, there was no earthly reason for the opp. parties to have ignored the case of the petitioner who along with another was found suitable for getting admission in P.G. Department of Art History. To the mind of this Court, there cannot be a better case showing discriminatory treatment meted out to a student like the petitioner. Further, there is no definite indication as to when the regular posts of Lecturer in Sitar reserved for S.T. candidate and the post of Lecturer in Violin reserved for S.C. candidate as indicated in Annexure-G would be filled up except saying their selection would be finalized very soon. Further, there is no definite indication as to when the regular posts of Lecturer in Sitar reserved for S.T. candidate and the post of Lecturer in Violin reserved for S.C. candidate as indicated in Annexure-G would be filled up except saying their selection would be finalized very soon. In such circumstances, it may not be unreason ale to assume that by the time the above noted two regular posts are filled up, the students reading in Departments of Violin and Sitar might also have completed their 1st Semester without the benefit of getting instruction from such regular Lecturers. Secondly, such admission of less than five students in Departments of Violin and Sitar along with the Departments of Mardal, Flute and Drama also reflects the decision making process of opp. parties and one can reasonably infer that by admitting less than five students in all these Departments including the Departments of Violin and Sitar which are being managed by one guest faculty each, the authorities have relaxed the condition stipulated in Note-I. In such background, there exists no earthly reason for not extending the benefits of such relaxation to the petitioner for taking admission in the Department of Art History which is also being run by one Guest Faculty. It appears that the opp. parties have adopted different and unreasonable standards vis-à-vis the petitioner while denying her admission. It is also not unreasonable to presume that Dr. Saubhagya Pathy, who is taking the 2nd year class in the P.G. Department of Art History consisting of only eight students, can easily look after the petitioner’s education. Further, when Departments like Flute and Drama have admitted one student each in this academic year, depriving a brilliant student like the petitioner from getting admission by relying on Note-I of Annexure-1 and by raising the plea of economic viability clearly sounds strange and defies all logic. The plea of economic viability sounds odd as the authorities have no such problem vis-à-vis the Departments of Flute, Sitar and Drama where only one student has been admitted in each such Department. Such plea is also puzzling when the Prospectus highlights the aims and objects for offering such courses like Art History. Under the heading “FACULTY OF VISUAL ART (M.V.A. PROGRAMME)”, the Prospectus under Annexure-1 makes it clear that the finest contribution of Odisha to our country’s cultural heritage is its art, architecture and sculpture. Such plea is also puzzling when the Prospectus highlights the aims and objects for offering such courses like Art History. Under the heading “FACULTY OF VISUAL ART (M.V.A. PROGRAMME)”, the Prospectus under Annexure-1 makes it clear that the finest contribution of Odisha to our country’s cultural heritage is its art, architecture and sculpture. All through the ages Odisha was famous for its superior art and culture. The opp. party No.1 offers Post Graduate course in different branches of Visual Art including Art History with an aim to encourage the students for developing a theoretical and practical knowledge of high order in the concerned field. Such students in turn are naturally expected to spread the cultural heritage of the State. In such background, it is really ironic that despite having found the petitioner eligible, she has been deprived from taking admission in P.G. Department of Art History. Further, nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that the authorities have taken a decision to close down the Department of Art History as it has become economically non-viable. The said Department clearly offers a regular course. All these show the intensive attitude of the authorities. With regard to last point raised by Mr. Pattnaik, learned Senior Counsel for opp. parties that at this belated stage, the petitioner cannot be admitted, this Court is not willing to accept such submission. This is because in this case as indicated in the Prospectus under Annexure-1, the last date for admission into different courses was 31.7.2017. Though notice was issued to opp. parties by this Court by Special Messenger on 26.7.2017, however, as indicated earlier, the first counter was filed by opp. parties on 11.10.2017. Therefore, it lies ill in the mouth of the opp. parties to take the plea of delay. 10. For all these reasons, this writ application succeeds and this Court directs the opp. parties to give admission to the petitioner in the P.G. Course of Art History under M.V.A. Stream of Utkal University of Culture for the academic session 2017-18 forthwith. The opp. parties are also directed to hold special classes to be arranged so that the petitioner can make up for the time she has lost pursuing the litigation. However, if for some reason, it is not possible for the opp. The opp. parties are also directed to hold special classes to be arranged so that the petitioner can make up for the time she has lost pursuing the litigation. However, if for some reason, it is not possible for the opp. parties to give her admission in this academic session, then in tune with the spirit of decision of the Supreme Court as rendered in Shalini v. Kurukshetra University and another as reported in 2002 (2) SCC 270 , the petitioner shall be given admission in the 1st semester of P.G. course of Art History under M.V.A. stream of opp. party No.1 commencing from the next academic session, i.e., 2018-19. Accordingly, the writ application is disposed of.