Judgment :- 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. P-1. 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) L.L B course are not eligible for the award of scholarship, evidently on the basis of clause (13) of Ext. P4 Rules, which states thus: Employed people undergoing University courses shall not be eligible for the award of the Scholarships." The petitioner challenges the vires of clause (13) of Ext. P4 in the light of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and contends that University must be compelled to award merit scholarship to him. 3. P4 Rules, which states thus: Employed people undergoing University courses shall not be eligible for the award of the Scholarships." The petitioner challenges the vires of clause (13) of Ext. P4 in the light of Art.14 of the Constitution of India and contends that University must be compelled to award merit scholarship to him. 3. The petitioner contends that the classification of L.L 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. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed before me the rules framed by the Government of India regarding the National Scholarships Scheme for the award of merit scholarships for post metric studies. It is stated therein that the scheme was started in order that "no brilliant student is prevented on grounds of poverty from pursuing an academic career". The award of scholarship depends on the performance of the candidate in the various examinations of the School as well as first degree stages. Students securing 60% and above marks are eligible for the award. Scholarships will be paid without any consideration of the income of the parent of the candidate in regard to the scheme for postgraduate study. In the case of other courses candidates whose parents have a monthly income of Rs. 500/- or below alone are eligible for the award of scholarship. Students whose parents' income exceeds Rs. 500/- per month on an average will be awarded National Prize of Rs 100/- and a Certificate of Merit. Candidates in full-time employment will not be eligible for the award or national scholarship. 500/- or below alone are eligible for the award of scholarship. Students whose parents' income exceeds Rs. 500/- per month on an average will be awarded National Prize of Rs 100/- and a Certificate of Merit. Candidates in full-time employment will not be eligible for the award or national scholarship. If, however, they give up their employment or take study leave without pay for the entire duration of the course and pursue studies as full-time students, they will be eligible for award of scholarship. Scholarship holder under the National Scholarship Scheme is permitted to take up part-time job like tuition, etc. subject to the condition that the amount so earned does not exceed half of the Scholarship value. However, Ext. P4 rules are not similar to these rules. 5. According to the learned counsel for the respondent, Ext. P4 Rules have been framed by the University with the same object as is propounded in the National Scholarships Scheme, that is, to ensure the pursuit of an academic career by brilliant students, where such students would otherwise be prevented from so doing on account of poverty. I have carefully gone through Ext. P4 Rules. The Rules do not contain any indication to the effect that the object of the Rules is that "No brilliant student is prevented on grounds of poverty from pursuing academic career". The Rules do not state so explicitly; nor do the rules imply any such object. If the University had such an object in view, I am sure, conditions similar to those laid down by the Government of India regarding the means of the parents, etc. in regard to National Scholarships, could have been incorporated in Ext. P4 Rules as well. It is not, therefore, possible to accept the plea of the learned counsel for the respondent that the object of the Scheme is to help poor but brilliant students to pursue their academic career The object of Ext. P4 appears to be to give encouragement to meritorious students to pursue their academic career irrespective of their means. The Scheme of the Rules does not import the element of poverty into it. It cannot be said that only poor students deserve encouragement. University cannot be faulted for devising a scheme to give encouragement to all students of merit in the pursuit of their academic career. The Scheme of the Rules does not import the element of poverty into it. It cannot be said that only poor students deserve encouragement. University cannot be faulted for devising a scheme to give encouragement to all students of merit in the pursuit of their academic career. This is not to say that the University cannot devise a scheme to help meritorious students without means in the pursuit of their academic career, but that does not appear to be the purpose of Ext. P4 Rules. Therefore, in the context the classification made by the University between students with jobs and students without jobs does not appear to be reasonable and the classification does not appear to have any nexus with the object of the scheme. 6. Let us assume that the object of the scheme is as suggested by the learned counsel for the respondent, viz, to ensure that no brilliant student is prevented on grounds of poverty from pursuing an academic career. They are to be helped by the award of scholarship of the value of Rs. 900/- per each year of the academic course as laid down in Ext. P4. That the authority concerned has a right, and if I may say so, a duty also, to classify students for the purpose of the scheme, cannot be denied. But, in doing so, the authority has to act within the constitutional parameters propounded in Art.14 of the Constitution and the authority must act free from arbitrariness. The classification made in Ext. P4 rules is between "employed" students undergoing university course on the one part and other students on the other, ie, non-employed students. Ext. P3 goes one step further and states that students of the evening course are not eligible. Assuming that poverty is the guiding factor in regard to the award of scholarship, should there not be an examination of such poverty factor among the non-employed students also. Non-employed students can join only the full-time or the day course, while employed persons can normally join only the evening or part-time course, though if they are on study leave, they can also seek admission to the full-time or day course. There may be non-employed students whose parents are not poor, some of them may be even rich. Non-employed students can join only the full-time or the day course, while employed persons can normally join only the evening or part-time course, though if they are on study leave, they can also seek admission to the full-time or day course. There may be non-employed students whose parents are not poor, some of them may be even rich. Such students cannot be regarded as being prevented from pursuing academic career on grounds of poverty Yet they are eligible for award of scholarship. At the same time, it may be that the employment of the students in the part-time course may be such and their remuneration may be so meagre and the income of their parents also may be so small that they will fall under the category of "poor People". There may be cases where such employed people are prevented on grounds of poverty from pursuing their academic career. At the same time employed persons on study leave, who join the full-time course, may be or their parents may be sufficiently rich, and they will not be prevented on the ground of poverty from pursuing their academic career. Thus such employed students of full-time course are not denied University Merit Scholarship under Ext. P2 while those among the students of the Part-time course who are struck by poverty, are not eligible for University Merit Scholarship solely on the ground of their employment. The inference is clear, viz., that poor but brilliant students among the employed are treated differently under Ext. P3 ie, those joining the full-time course by taking study leave or leave without pay are treated one way and those joining part-time course are treated in another way in the case of award of University merit scholarship. Similarly under Ext. P4 rules poor among the non-employed students are treated differently from the poor among the employed students. On the other hand, poor among the employed students are subjected to disability while those not poor among the non-employed students are not visited with any such disability under Ext P4 rules. This is a clear case of equals being treated unequally and also unequals being treated equally. The classification made is wholly arbitrary and has no nexus with the alleged object of the Scheme under Ext. P4. I find that Clause.13 of Ext. P4 Rules and Ext. This is a clear case of equals being treated unequally and also unequals being treated equally. The classification made is wholly arbitrary and has no nexus with the alleged object of the Scheme under Ext. P4. I find that Clause.13 of Ext. P4 Rules and Ext. P3 decision are arbitrary and violative of Art.14 of the Constitution and therefore, the same are liable to be struck down and I do so. 7. Sri. V. Bhaskaran Nambiar, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that no student has a right to claim scholarship and that the award of scholarship is within the discretion of the University and therefore petition under Art.226 of the Constitution will not lie.1 am not able to agree with this submission. It is open to the University either to institute scholarships or refrain from doing so. If the University does not want to institute Scholarships, possibly no student may be able to compel it to do so. If, however, the University decides to institute scholarships and prepares a scheme for the same, as an "authority" within the meaning of the Art.12 of the Constitution of India, it has a constitutional duty to act reasonably and refrain from arbitrariness in action. If in instituting or awarding scholarships. University acts arbitrarily and by doing so violates Art.14 of the Constitution, a student, who is otherwise eligible for the scholarship has certainly a right to approach this court for appropriate reliefs. 8. It is unnecessary for me to decide the other attacks levelled by the petitioner against Clause.13 of Ext. P4 in the view I have taken regarding its unconstitutionality. In the result, the original petition is allowed by the issuance of a writ of certiorari quashing clause (13) of Ext. P4 and Ext. P3. The respondent, University of Kerala, is further directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for the award of scholarship under Ext. P4 rules and to dispose of his claim in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. In the circumstances, the parties will bear their respective costs. Issue carbon copy of the judgment on payment of requisite charges. Allowed.