MADHUMATI Vs. UTKAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Madhumati Agrawala or Shaheen Nilofer - who of the two would be entitled to be the recipient of the General Research Scholarship for Sociology available in the Utkal University for this year ? This is the question for consideration in the writ application under Art.226 of the Constitution of India made by the petitioner Madhumati Agrawala in which the Utkal University figures as the opposite party No. 1 and Shaheen Nilofer, who has been adjudged to be the best among the candidates applying for the scholarship, as the opposite party No. 2. The petitioner claims that although a student of Political Science, having done research work in Sociology as would be evident from the certificates as per Annexures 4 and 5, she is entitled to be considered for this scholarship.

(2.) Appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Patnaik has submitted forcefully that although the petitioner has not done her M. A. in Sociology, she is entitled to be considered for this scholarship, but has been discriminated against. This contention has been resisted by Mr. G.P. Mohanty for the University and Mr. Sanjeet Mohanty appearing for the opp. party No. 2 On a consideration of the materials placed before us, we do not find any justification for upholding the legal contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that there has been infringement of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and factually we find that there is nothing for the petitioner to bring home about.

(3.) Art.14 of the Constitution forbids discrimination and there would be no discrimination where the classification making the differentia fulfils two conditions, namely (i) that the classification is founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group; and (ii) that that differentia has a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the impugned legislative or executive action. "Equality before law" or "equal protection of the laws" within the meaning of Art.14 means absence of any arbitrary discrimination by the law or in their administration. The classification permissible a must be based on some real and substantial distinction, a just and reasonable-relation to the objects sought to be attained and cannot be made arbitrarily and without any substantial basis. See AIR 1981 SC 487 Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi and AIR 1981 SC 1001 Om Prakash Sud v. State of J. and K.