BENOY THOMAS Vs. UNIVERSITY OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Can the University of Kerala Merit Scholarship, for which the petitioner in this Original Petition has been found provisionally eligible, be denied to him on the ground that be is a student of the Part-time (evening) LL.B. Course

(2.) The Petitioner passed B.Sc. degree examination with distinction, securing high marks. He joined, in the academic year 1980-81, the full-time LL.B. Course of the University of Kerala in the Government Law College, Ernakulam. In December, 1980, having secured a job, he changed over to the part-time LL.B. Course in the same college and is now in the Final Year. Kerala University resolved to award University Mint Scholarship for the LL.B. and other courses as per Ext. P4 rules. University published a provisional list of eligible candidates for the award of the scholarship to students undergoing LL.B. Course during the academic year 1980-81 as is seen from Ext. P1. Two science candidates and two non science candidates are eligible for scholarship. In the list of science candidates, the petitioner stood first However, when his change over to the part-time LL.B. Course was reported to the University, the Principal of the College was informed by the University under Ext. P3 letter that students of the Part-time (evening) LL. B course are not eligible for the award of scholarship, evidently on the basis of clause (13) of Ext. P4 Rules, which states thus:

(3.) The petitioner contends that the classification of LL.B. students or any group of students for that matter, into students of the regular course and employed students, who would normally find admission only to the part-time (evening) course and the classification into employed and non employed students is not reasonable and that such classification has no nexus with the object of the Rules and the same is arbitrary. The learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the object of the Rules is to ensure that "no brilliant student is prevented on grounds of poverty from pursuing an academic career" and since "employed students" cannot be said to be poor and cannot be regarded as being prevented from pursuing academic career on grounds of poverty, separate treatment accorded to such students is reasonable and has direct nexus with the object of the rules.