UNIVERSITY OF KERALA Vs. BENOY THOMAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent in the Writ Appeal is a student in the evening class of the Law College at Ernakulam. The University is awarding merit scholarships for the students of the LL.B./B.Ed, courses and rules have been framed in this behalf. These rules provide for four University Merit Scholarships of the value of Rs. 900/- per annum for the students undergoing the LL.B, course and out of this four, two will be for science candidates and two for non science candidates. The rules provide that candidates for the award of the scholarships should possess a first class bachelor's degree obtained at the University Examination held immediately preceding the award of the scholarships. In the absence of eligible candidates from the immediately preceding University Examination candidates who had obtained a first class in the previous examination at the first appearance also will be considered. Clause.3 which is relevant for the purpose of this appeal may be extracted here:

(2.) Evidently the impugned clause operates to exclude a class of persons from the benefit of the rules which in the normal course must be available to persons who are similarly situate. By excluding employed people from the scope of benefit of the clause they are prima facie treated as a different class and the justification for this would necessarily depend upon the object of treating them as a different class and the method adopted to serve that object.

(3.) Normally in a case where there is a challenge to a rule as violating the right of equality under the Constitution it is for the authority which is responsible for the rule to indicate the reasons why there has been such a classification. We have gone through the counter affidavit. 'The counter affidavit indicates the background for Clause.13 in the rule. It appears that a person who held a merit scholarship got an employment at one time and the said person continued to enjoy the scholarship. It was then that the University Syndicate considered the matter and decided that when a student becomes employed the benefit of merit scholarship will not be available to such student any more. The above statement in the counter affidavit will only serve as furnishing the background for the rules and would not be sufficient to justify the action. The only paragraph in which, if at all, we could read some justification is paragraphs of the counter affidavit which we extract here: