P. C. ABRAHAM v. STATE OF KERALA — 1972 DIGILAW 23 (KER)

Judgment :- 1. The petitioner as well as the 4th respondent are members of the non-teaching staff in the St. Joseph's College, Calicut of which the 3rd respondent is the President, Managing Board. The petitioner is a graduate. He obtained his degree in 1959 and soon thereafter joined the service of the college and has put in 11 years of service in the College in the Upper Division cadre since his appointment on 18 91959. The 4th respondent was also an Upper Division Clerk whose service is longer than that of the petitioner by about three years, his service having commenced on 171956. But the petitioner's case is that for further promotion to the post of Senior Superintendent his claim is better than that of the 4th respondent as the 4th respondent is under qualified. It is said that while the petitioner is a graduate, the 4th respondent has not even passed the S. S. L. C. and has also not passed the account test and in the absence of these qualifications there is no question of the 4th respondent being promoted to the Senior Superintendent's cadre and that the petitioner is qualified to be promoted. The promotion of the 4th respondent in relaxation of the existing rules to the post of Senior Superintendent is under challenge in the petition. 2. The college in which the petitioner is working is a private college. The pattern of non-teaching staff in Government Colleges has been made applicable to the Private Colleges and it is provided by Ext. P-1 G. O. that the qualifications prescribed for similar posts in Government colleges will be strictly followed in regard to the Private College. 3. The Director of Collegiate Education who is the second respondent in the Original Petition, by a circular issued by him to the Principals of all Private Colleges, intimated them of the qualifications prescribed for the non-teaching posts in Government Colleges. In the annexure to the Circular, extract of which is Ext. P2, it is stated that for the post of L. D. Clerk S. S. L. C. is the minimum qualification and for promotion to the post of U. D Clerk seniority is the criterion. In the annexure to the Circular, extract of which is Ext. P2, it is stated that for the post of L. D. Clerk S. S. L. C. is the minimum qualification and for promotion to the post of U. D Clerk seniority is the criterion. It is also seen that the post of Headclerk/Head Accountant is to be filled up by promotion from U. D, clerks according to seniority and to the post of Senior Superintendent promotion is from the post of Headclerk/Head Accountant according to seniority. The post of Senior Superintendent is a selection post to which promotion is made from the lower category according to merit, seniority being considered only when merit is equal. 4. Government, by Ext. P3 Government Order dated 16 91970 ordered that those who do not possess the qualification of S. S. L. C. appointed on or before 141962 would be allowed to go up to the maximum in the revised scales of 80-160 and 90-190 in view of the earlier orders passed. They further clarified that such under qualified non-teaching staff of the Private Colleges who were in the lower division cadres were eligible for promotion to U. D. cadres but that they would be eligible for higher grades (Head Accountant, Junior Superintendent/ Senior Superintendent) only after they pass the Account test and possess the minimum S. S. L. C. qualification. 5. Even now the 4th respondent is not possessed of either of the above qualifications and it is therefore the petitioner's case that he is not entitled to be promoted to any posts above that of the U. D. Clerk. 6. The Government, by Ext. P-4 order, passed subsequently on 3131971 extended the concession under Ext. P3 to the members of the non-teaching staff of Private Colleges. This was on a representation made by the Kerala Private College Ministerial Staff Federation. It was provided by Ext. P4 that such of the staff as possessed the minimum educational qualification for the post will be given temporary exemption from test qualification for promotion to higher grades (Head Accountant, Jr. Supdt./Senior Supdt) for a period of 2 years, within which period they would be required to acquire the necessary test qualification. There is a further provision for exemption and that is in regard to persons who have completed 20 years of service or 50 years of age as on February 1971. Supdt./Senior Supdt) for a period of 2 years, within which period they would be required to acquire the necessary test qualification. There is a further provision for exemption and that is in regard to persons who have completed 20 years of service or 50 years of age as on February 1971. Such persons are exempted from passing the departmental test The 4th respondent was apparently not entitled to the benefit of exemption from test qualification as he was not a person who was above 50 years of age and of 20 years of service. He was also not entitled to the benefit of exemption from passing the test for a period of two years under the above said Government order as be did not have the minimum educational qualification prescribed. Therefore, in spite of Ext P4 Government Order, the 4th respondent was a person who was not qualified by reason of want of minimum educational qualification as also the test qualification. 7. On 29-9-1970 the Director of Collegiate Education approved the pattern of non-teaching posts for the St. Joseph's College, Calicut. A copy of the staff fixation statement is Ext P5. It can be seen from Ext. P5 that one post of Senior Superintendent and one post of Head Accountant were sanctioned. The petitioner thereupon put in a representation on 22 41971 to the President of the Managing Board requesting that in view of his qualifications and experience he may be promoted to the post of Senior Superintendent But the complaint is that in spite of the fact that the 4th respondent was not qualified in accordance with the rules and in spite of the fact that the petitioner was qualified for bold-ing such a post, the 3rd respondent promoted the 4th respondent in preference to the petitioner as Senior Superintendent with effect from 9 2 1971. That was stated to be by a memo dated 30 71971.On the same date the petitioner was promoted as Head Accountant with effect from 9 21971. It may be noticed here that the post of Head Accountant was on a lower grade the scale of pay of which is Rs. 175-315 while the post of Senior Superintendent is in the scale of Rs. 310-600. 8. Soon thereafter the appointment of the 4th respondent as Senior Superintendent was approved. It may be noticed here that the post of Head Accountant was on a lower grade the scale of pay of which is Rs. 175-315 while the post of Senior Superintendent is in the scale of Rs. 310-600. 8. Soon thereafter the appointment of the 4th respondent as Senior Superintendent was approved. The petitioner on 6 81971 made a representation to the Director of Collegiate Education against the appointment of the 4th respondent as Senior Superintendent. He prayed that the promotion order may be cancelled as he was the only eligible employee for promotion as Senior Superintendent in the College. He appears to have also made a representation to the Minister for Education pointing out that the appointment of the 4th respondent to the post of the Senior Superintendent was against rules and praying that necessary orders may be issued to cancel the appointment of the 4th respondent and to promote the petitioner to the post of Senior Superintendent. Ext. P7 is the copy of the representation sent to the Director of Collegiate Education and Ext. P8 is the copy of the representation sent to the Minister for Education. Apparently neither of these representations had any response. What seems to have happened thereafter is that Government thought of granting exemption to the 4th respondent, from possessing minimum qualification. This was ordered by Ext. P9 dated 15 91971. It is this order which dow justifies his appointment as Senior Superintendent though unqualified and therefore petitioner's challenge is to Ext. P9 order which runs as follows: "Government are pleased to grant exemption to Sri. V. P. Abdulla Koya Thangal, Senior most Upper Division Clerk, St. Joseph's College Devagiri from minimum qualification to hold the post of Senior Superintendent in the same College." Of course, the exemption is seen limited to possession of minimum qualification. There is no specific reference to exemption-from test qualification. 9. Ext. P9 order is challenged on the ground that it violates Art.14 of the Constitution of India, as it has singled out the 4th respondent for a special favour. The exemption granted is said to be against the rules and the Government Orders which insist upon strict adherence to the qualifications prescribed for the post of non-teaching staff. The exemption to a particular individual by way of relaxation is characterised as malafide. 10. The plea of malafides is taken in the Original Petition. The exemption granted is said to be against the rules and the Government Orders which insist upon strict adherence to the qualifications prescribed for the post of non-teaching staff. The exemption to a particular individual by way of relaxation is characterised as malafide. 10. The plea of malafides is taken in the Original Petition. But it is exemplified in the reply affidavits filed by the petitioner. I find from the file that there are two such affidavits filed. It is necessary to refer to certain circumstances relied on in support of the plea of malafides. The qualification of various categories of non-teaching staff in Private Colleges are seen prescribed in the grant-in-aid Code as amended from time to time. In the grant-in-aid Code it is stated that "Persons not possessing the qualification of S.S.L.C. will not be allowed to go beyond Rs. 85/ in the grade." This is seen from Ext. P10. By amendment of the Code by Government order dated 19121969 government relaxed this to provide that persons not possessing the qualification of S. S. L. C. will not be allowed to go beyond Rs.125/-intbe revised scale of Rs. 80180. By Ext. P12 letter dated 4 71970 the Director of Collegiate Education emphasised that the conditions and qualifications required by the relevant government orders may be borne in mind when promoting the existing persons to higher categories. It was particularly pointed out in Ext. P12 that if an existing U. D. clerk was to be promoted as Head Accountant/Junior Superintendent/Senior Superintendent he/she should possess the account test lower and other required qualifications. It is not in dispute that if the orders in the grant-in-aid Code, the relevant government orders and the instructions of the Director of Collegiate Education were to be the criteria for appointment to the higher post, the 4th respondent was not qualified. At the time he was promoted by order of the 3rd respondent on 30 71971, admittedly there was no order of exemption as it was passed only later. 11. At the time he was promoted by order of the 3rd respondent on 30 71971, admittedly there was no order of exemption as it was passed only later. 11. It is further mentioned in the affidavit in rejoinder that in R.27 of the Conditions of Service of non-teaching staff in Private Colleges laid down by the Kerala University and subsequently made applicable by the Calicut University to its affiliated Colleges, it is stated that the appointments in upper grades have to be made from among the members in the lower categories eligible for promotion on the basis of qualification, seniority, merit and ability. Therefore it is contended that when qualifications are prescribed promotion from among those who are not qualified will be violative of the said R.27. In Para.16 of his affidavit in rejoinder the petitioner states that in any case the exemption granted by Ext. P9 is discriminatory and malafide, because Government have never given exemption from minimum qualification to any individual and Ext. P9 is the first of its kind. It is averred that it was due to influence exerted by the 4th respondent, V. P. Abdulla Koya Thangal, upon the Minister for Education, Sri Mohammad Koya that the order has been passed. To support the plea of malafides certain other facts also are referred to. It would appear that the recommendation for exemption was made by the Registrar of the Calicut University. It is the petitioner's case that when the matter reached the Government, since it was noticed that on the file the recommendation for exemption seen was only that of the Principal and the Manager's recommendation was necessary, the Government took the extraordinary step of sending a message to the Collector, Calicut seeking such recommendation of the Manager through the Teleprinter service. It is said that this extraordinary procedure adopted in the case and the special interest shown in the matter of exemption by, the Minister for Education would bear out the plea of malafides. Therefore it is urged that the exemption order should, in any event, be struck down. 12. As indicated earlier it was by Ext. P5 order dated 22 91970 that the place of Senior Superintendent and another of Head Accountant were approved for the St. Joseph's College, Calicut. The petitioner had represented his claims to the 3rd respondent on 22 41971 by Ext. P6. 12. As indicated earlier it was by Ext. P5 order dated 22 91970 that the place of Senior Superintendent and another of Head Accountant were approved for the St. Joseph's College, Calicut. The petitioner had represented his claims to the 3rd respondent on 22 41971 by Ext. P6. The Principal who was then in office is stated to have vacated office and the present incumbent of the office is said to have taken charge on 3-7-1971. Soon thereafter he was reminded by the Director of Collegiate Education by Ext. P5 letter dated 10 7 1971 that the pattern of staff and scales of pay sanctioned in G. O. dated 9 21970 have not yet been implemented in certain private Colleges and attention was invited to the earlier orders issued on the subject. The Manager was told that steps should be taken to fill up the post, if not already done, taking into consideration the relevant orders in this behalf. On 17 71971 the Principal wrote to the Secretary to Government, Education Department, through the Registrar, University of Calicut informing the Government that Sri V. P. Abdulla Koya Thangal was promoted to the post of Senior Superintendent. Government was requested to ratify the promotion. (I must notice here that it is rather strange that the Principal should inform the Government that the 4th respondent was promoted and request the Government for ratification when, as a matter of fact, the appointment is seen to have been made only much later, namely, on 30 71971). The Government was told in the said letter marked as Ext. RI and produced by the 4th respondent along with his counter affidavit that the 4th respondent was the senior-most U.D. Clerk, that he had put in 15 years of service in the College and that he may be given permanent exemption since he was now 46 years of age. The significant fact is that no mention was made in Ext. RI letter of the fact that the 4th respondent did not have the minimum educational qualification. If he had such minimum educational qualification he could be appointed at that time as Senior Superintendent as it was within the period of exemption of 2 years for possession of test qualification. The request in Ext. RI letter of the fact that the 4th respondent did not have the minimum educational qualification. If he had such minimum educational qualification he could be appointed at that time as Senior Superintendent as it was within the period of exemption of 2 years for possession of test qualification. The request in Ext. R.1 was nevertheless for exempting Sri V. P. Abdulla Koya Thangal "from the minimum qualification." It is seen that under a letter dated 23-7-1971, Ext. R2, the Registrar of the Calicut University has forwarded Ext. RI to the Government with a recommendation of the Registrar. I am not told how the Registrar, by himself could have made any such recommendation in regard to Sri Thangal and whether this was so made under any rules in force. 13. As I indicated, though Ext. R1 letter mentioned that the 4th respondent had been promoted, actually the promotion order, copy of which is Ext. R4 was later as it is dated 30-7-1971. It mentions that the 4th respondent is being promoted subject to grant of exemption from minimum qualification by the Government and successful completion of the prescribed test for the post within the prescribed time. It further appears that soon thereafter, on 3 81971, the Principal wrote to the Secretary to the Government (this time not through the Registrar of the Calicut University) in continuation of his earlier letter Ext. RI mentioning that the 4th respondent is under-qualified in that he has failed in the S S. L. C. examination and that in the light of the resolution passed at a meeting on 10 31971 exemption may be granted to the 4th respondent from minimum qualification. The petitioner's representation to the Director of Collegiate Education through the Principal is seen sent thereafter namely on 6-8-1971. It was soon after the appointment order was issued to Sri Thangal. In that he requested instructions to the College authorities to cancel the promotion given to Sri Thangal. It is seen that within a few days the Principal of the College wrote a letter dated 14-8-1971 to the Minister for Education further pressing upon the Minister to treat the 4th respondent's case as a special one and to grant the exemption. 14. It is seen that within a few days the Principal of the College wrote a letter dated 14-8-1971 to the Minister for Education further pressing upon the Minister to treat the 4th respondent's case as a special one and to grant the exemption. 14. It is pertinent here to mention that the Government had in the meanwhile called for remarks from the Director of Collegiate Education on the request of the Principal for exemption to 4th respondent. The Director offered his remarks by his letter dated 13-8-1971, a copy of which is Ext. P-16. He informed the Government that under the existing orders Sri. Thangal was not eligible for promotion to the post of Head Accountant, Junior Superintendent or Senior Superintendent and that he could only aspire to be promoted to the U. D. Clerk's post (which he was holding before his appointment as Senior Superintendent). It was further pointed out that exemption from passing departmental test was not admissible in his case as he did not possess the minimum educational qualification and had not completed 20 years of service and 50 years of age as on 1-2-1971. As regards the request for exemption from minimum educational qualification the Director of Collegiate Education was of the view that it should be regarded with disfavour for sufficient reasons. It is stated in Ext. P-16 thus: "But if such request for exemption from minimum educational qualification is considered it will lead to similar requests from other colleges also and it will create great repercussions from the qualified bands in the college." 15. I had occasion to peruse the file of the Government available with the Government Pleader and I do not think that subsequently, in passing the order of exemption, any consideration has been made of this opinion of the Director of Collegiate Education. From the files it is seen that on 21-8-1971 the matter took a new turn and the file began to move with considerable speed. Possibly because it was found that there was no recommendation of the Manager for the exemption, the Secretary is seen to have directed the sending of a teleprinter message in regard to this matter through the District Collector, Calicut. Ext. X-9 produced by the 3rd respondent is a copy of the reply by the Principal of the College confirming a telegram sent in reply to the teleprinter message. Ext. X-9 produced by the 3rd respondent is a copy of the reply by the Principal of the College confirming a telegram sent in reply to the teleprinter message. In that it was represented that the Manager had already recommended the promotion to the 4th respondent. This was followed by the order of exemption Ext. P9. 16. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent, the facts stated in the petition are not controverted. It is mentioned that Government, by its order dated 15-9-1971, granted exemption to the 4th respondent from the minimum qualification because of the circumstances referred to in Para.5 of the counter-affidavit. It is better to quote the words of the counter-affidavit and therefore I extract Para.5 of the counter-affidavit here "5 The 4th respondent is the Senior most U. D. Clerk in the St. Josephs College. Devagiri. Though the 4th respondent is not fully qualified for promotion as Senior Superintendent, the Principal of the College promoted the 4th respondent as Senior Superintendent and the Principal requested to ratify his action in giving such a promotion by giving the 4th respondent exemption from minimum qualification. This proposal of the Principal was recommended by the University of Calicut and the management Ext. P9 order was also passed as there was a request from the St. Joseph's College Unit of the Kerala Private College Ministerial Staff Federation. The fact that the 4th respondent is the Senior most U.D. clerk having longest service as U.D. Clerk in the College is admitted by the petitioner also. In the absence of statutory rules prescribing qualifications for the ministerial staff of Private College, it is submitted that the Government is competent to relax the conditions stipulated in an executive order in the deserving cases where the authorities have recommended the grant of an exemption." 17. The Minister for Education Sri. C. H. Mohammad Koya has also filed a counter-affidavit possibly because allegations of malafides are made against him personally. He has stated in the affidavit that "The 4th respondent, Abdulla Koya Thangal, has not exerted any influence on me as alleged by the petitioner." No other circumstance is spoken to therein. Counter-affidavits have been filed by respondents 3 and 4 also, 18. He has stated in the affidavit that "The 4th respondent, Abdulla Koya Thangal, has not exerted any influence on me as alleged by the petitioner." No other circumstance is spoken to therein. Counter-affidavits have been filed by respondents 3 and 4 also, 18. In the light of the facts found, it is evident that there are administrative rules in regard to qualifications to be possessed by members of the non-teaching staff for promotion to the post to which the 4th respondent was promoted on 30 91971. He was not qualified for the promotion both because of absence of minimum, educational qualification, namely, pass in S. S. L. C. and because be was not possessed of the test qualification. In regard to the latter he would have been entitled to temporary exemption for two years provided he had the minimum educational qualification. The exemption order is stated to be because it had been recommended by the management and the Registrar of University and also the St. Joseph's College Unit of the Kerala Private College Ministerial Staff Federation. Of course, there is no material in regard to the last of these in the records in the case, not that it is relevant. If any such body takes sides in the matter of such a dispute or passes any resolution as to who should be preferred, for promotion, the grant of exemption based on any such act or resolution must be considered to be vitiated by extraneous considerations unless it be that the reason behind the same appeals to the Government. So is the case with the recommendation of the Registrar of the Calicut University. I am not told how the Registrar was competent to make any such recommendation. Nor is it evident that he was in possession of facts which could have guided him in taking a decision. More important is the fact that the letter which he recommended, namely, Ext. R1 was not one requesting exemption from minimum educational qualification which was the one necessary in the case of the 4th respondent. Such a request was made only in the letter Ext. R3 dated 3 81971 which was sent directly by the Principal to the Secretary to Government. Therefore the recommendation in Ext. RI was not one which was relevant. R1 was not one requesting exemption from minimum educational qualification which was the one necessary in the case of the 4th respondent. Such a request was made only in the letter Ext. R3 dated 3 81971 which was sent directly by the Principal to the Secretary to Government. Therefore the recommendation in Ext. RI was not one which was relevant. I would have thought that the most pertinent and relevant opinion in a matter of this nature would be that of the Director of Collegiate Education whose remarks in this behalf were called for. It is strange that no reference is made to his remarks in Ext. P 9 order. No reason is shown in the counter-affidavit nor is it apparent from the files as to why his opinion was brushed aside. As indicated earlier, he had strongly expressed himself against any such exemption since that would lead to unrest among the qualified people. Moreover, it would be setting a precedent, which is likely to lead to similar demands in other colleges. In such matters a government is expected to take more care and caution in dealing with a case for exemption and not to handle it in a casual manner as has apparently been done in the instance before me. Nor has any compelling reason is shown at least in the counter-affidavit as to why the grant of exemption was inevitable. On the merits I have therefore no hesitation in holding that the order of exemption suffers from the vice complained of. 19. The main point urged before me is concerning the propriety of interference by this court in a matter of this nature. Whether departure from adherence to administrative rules laid down by the Government in a matter as the one before me, namely the appointment of non-teaching staff in Private Colleges would attract Art.14 of the Constitution and whether the offending conduct would be discriminatory as violative of the said article is the question that has to engage my attention here. For the Government as well as for the Management and the 4th respondent, it is urged that even assuming that the rule was departed from by way of what is termed as an exemption, there is no scope for the charge of arbitrariness or discrimination since it could not be said that by an administrative order any right has been conferred on any citizen. No doubt, the departure in the present case is termed as an exemption. In one sense every departure from an established rule can be characterised as exemption from the rule. Whether such exemption in regard to administrative orders will lead to arbitrariness and to violation of the right of equality is the matter for consideration. 20. In the case in State of Kerala v. J. Mathew (1964 KLT. 298) challenge was made to an order passed by the Government regarding selection of candidates for admission to the Medical Colleges in the State. The challenge was one of violation of Art.14 and 15 of the Constitution. A contention was advanced on behalf of the appellants in the case that the order being a mete executive direction no question of any violation of the right to equality before the law guaranteed by Art.14 of the Constitution arose. Dealing with this, the learned judges said thus: "We do not agree. Any threat to the equality enshrined in Art.14 whether it emanates from the legislature or the executive is met by the Constitution. As stated by the Supreme Court in Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income-tax (AIR. 1959 SC. 149): The very language of Art.14 of the Constitution expressly directs that 'the state' which by Art.12 includes the executive organ, shall not deny to any person equality before the law or the equal protection of the laws. Thus Art.14 protects us from both legislative and executive tyranny by way of discrimination." The plea that while non-compliance with enacted law in the matter of application to citizens would attract a charge of arbitrariness, it would not be the case if the charge is one of arbitrariness in the matter of executive action cannot be sustained. Executive authorities are not free to act as they like even in matters where they are not guided by provisions of law. In all matters resulting in civil consequences to the citizens the executive has to treat all alike. The executive will be open to be charged with arbitrariness in the matter of its action, administrative though it be if the facts disclose unequal treatment just as it would be subjected to a charge of arbitrariness when it discriminates against a person or persons in the matter of application of the rules of law. The Supreme Court of India in Satwant Singh v. A.P.O., New Delhi (AIR. The Supreme Court of India in Satwant Singh v. A.P.O., New Delhi (AIR. 1967 S.C 1836) said thus: "One of the aspects of rule of law is that every executive action, if it is to operate to the prejudice of any person, must be supported by some legislative authority Secondly such a law would be void, if it discriminates or enables an authority to discriminate between persons without just classification. What a legislature could not do, the executive could not obviously do." In that case the refusal of passport to the petitioner without sufficient justification was held to be offending Art.14 of the Constitution though in the matter of such refusal the executive was not to act in compliance with any provision of law. The charge was one of arbitrariness in executive action. 21. The executive has power to make rules regulating any matters in regard to which such regulation is required in such a manner as not to contravene any legislation in that behalf. Such regulation would be valid even if not of statutory origin and if in the matter of such regulation, there is non-compliance by the executive, it lays itself open to a charge of discrimination by reason of arbitrary exercise of its power. Administrative regulations and orders are also sources of law. This Court in Junus v. Auditor General of India (1970 KLT. 571) quoting the following words of Mr. Justice Frankfurter in Vaterelli v. Seaton ((359) US 535) "An executive agency must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes its actions to be judged. Accordingly, if dismissal from employment is based on a defined procedure, even if generous beyond the requirements that bind such agency, that procedure must be scrupulously observed. This judicial rule of administrative law is now firmly established and, if I may add, rightly so. He "that takes the procedural sword shall perish with that sword", said thus: "The proposition that violation of administrative rules, unless backed by statute, is not justiciable, has to be understood with certain reservations." The Calcutta High Court in Jaya Engineering Works v. State (AIR. 1968 Cal. 407) considered the case of two circulars issued by the Government in regard to the procedure to be adopted in the matter of 'Gheraos'. 1968 Cal. 407) considered the case of two circulars issued by the Government in regard to the procedure to be adopted in the matter of 'Gheraos'. The court held that the circulars violate Art.14 of the Constitution and that merely because the directions were of executive origin the court was not precluded from considering their validity. 22. In Suresh v. Principal, Govt. Bremen College (1966 KLT.127), Justice K. K. Mathew was dealing with a plea by a student that the Principal of the College should not have fettered his discretion to admit the petitioner by relying on rules for selection of applicants which had no statutory force. The rules in question were those applied in the matter of admission to the University College, Trivandrum, which, on the direction of the Director of Collegiate Education, were extended to the College in question. The contention was that a non-statutory rule framed by the Government should not govern the rights of the students for admission. The learned judge held that the Principal was entitled to refuse admission to the petitioner based on the said rule. The learned judge further observed that the rule was followed in the college in question on the basis of the instructions of the Director of Collegiate Education and the Principal had no discretion not to follow the rule. It was further said: "I am not able to perceive how this rule will lead to any discrimination. On the other hand if exemptions are granted from this rule that may lead to discrimination." 23. A rule, whether it be of legislative or executive origin, is intended to be applied with an even hand to those who come under its sway. Departure from the rule would necessarily amount to arbitrary treatment unless such departure itself be justified as in favour of a class deserving special treatment which in a particular case may even be an individual. That in essence is the justification for exemptions. But such has not been shown here. Apart from the fact that Ext. P9 order does not speak rationally and the Government's file produced before me speaks much less, it has not been attempted to be shown by reference to any circumstance that in spite of the strong views expressed by the Director of Collegiate Education in Ext. But such has not been shown here. Apart from the fact that Ext. P9 order does not speak rationally and the Government's file produced before me speaks much less, it has not been attempted to be shown by reference to any circumstance that in spite of the strong views expressed by the Director of Collegiate Education in Ext. P16, and the serious consequences of departure from the rule pointed out therein there was compelling reason to grant exemption to the 4th respondent. Ext P9 has therefore to be found to be an arbitrary exercise of the power of Government and has to be quashed. I do so. 24. It is not necessary for me in the circumstances of the case to find one way or the other on the plea of malafides urged in the matter of the conduct of the Minister for Education, since the action of the first respondent cannot be sustained even otherwise on the materials available. In the result, the Original Petition is allowed, Ext P9 is quashed and respondents 1 to 3 are directed to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Senior Superintendent in the St. Joseph's College, Devagiri. The petitioner will get his costs from the respondents.