ORDER S.K. Dhaon, J. - The prayer in substance is that the University of Allahabad the respondent No. 1 and the Principal, Moti Lal Nehru Medical College, Allahabad, the respondent No. 2, may be commended to award two grace marks to the petitioner in the subject of Ear, Nose, Throat and Ophthalmology (hereinafter referred to as the subject in question). 2. In the final professional examination, the petitioner cleared all the subjects except the subject in question in which he secured 98 marks, minimum, requirement being 100 marks. He made a representation to the Vice Chancellor stating therein that in view of the recommendation of the Medical Counsel of India, as accepted by the University, he was entitled to he given two grace marks. He also emphasised that the University itself had given four grace marks in the subject in question to one particular candidate, namely, Bhagwat Prasad Pandey. The representation having remained undisposed of, this Court, upon a writ petition preferred by the petitioner, directed the Vice-Chancellor to dispose of the representation within a specified time. The representation not having been disposed of, the petitioner has again approached this Court with this petition. 3. No counter-affidavit has been filed either on behalf of the University or on behalf of the Medical College in spite time being granted to them for doing so. Sri Upadhya, who appears for the University, has pressed for further time but I am not inclined to accede to that request. The Standing Counsel is not present. 4. The petition has not been admitted as yet. However, with the consent of the learned counsel, I have heard this petition with a view to dispose of the same finally and, therefore, I am doing so. 5. The uncontroverted averment is that the recommendation of the Medical Counsel as accepted by the University is that if a student has failed to clear only one of the subjects in the final professional examination he may be given grace marks up to a maximum limit of 15. Thus, it is evident that there is a provision for giving grace marks. It also remains uncontroverted that four grace marks were given in the subject in question to another candidate. 6. Thus, it is evident that there is a provision for giving grace marks. It also remains uncontroverted that four grace marks were given in the subject in question to another candidate. 6. Right to equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution is a combination of English doctrine of rule of law and the equal protection clause of Fourteenth Amendment to the American Federal Constitution which enjoins that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law." The objective is founded on a sound, public policy recognised and valued in all civilised States. See Basheshar Nath v. Commissioner of Income-tax ( AIR 1959 SC 149 at 157-158.) 7. It is now settled that one of the facets of Article 14 is that it eschews arbitrariness in any form. "Equality is antithetic to arbitrariness, equality and arbitrariness are sworn enemies". The choice is between the rule of law and the whim and caprice of an absolute monarch. Now, there can he no doubt that the University is "State" within the meaning of Article 12. Therefore, the University has to enquire and demonstrate fairness and equality of treatment. It has to show as to why it selected Bhagwat Prasad Pandey, for giving him the benefit of the provision which empowered it (the University) to award grace marks. Its selective choice of a particular beneficiary cannot be sustained unless it is found that the same has correlation with the object sought to be achieved. Whatever may be the object of the Medical Counsel of India, the same has equal application to all the candidates who fall within the parameters of its recommendation. To treat one person differently from another, when there is no rational basis for doing so, will he arbitrary and thus discriminatory. The discriminatory action of the University is liable to be struck down unless it can be shown by that the action is free from arbitrariness. For doing so, it will have to rely upon some valid principle which in itself is not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory. The discriminatory action of the University is liable to be struck down unless it can be shown by that the action is free from arbitrariness. For doing so, it will have to rely upon some valid principle which in itself is not irrational, unreasonable or discriminatory. Although we do not have the version of the University, but I am not in position to visualise any valid principle on the basis of which the University has given four grace marks to one candidate and is not prepared to give two grace marks to the petitioner when there can be no distinction much less a substantial distinction between the two candidates. 8. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. Nalla Raja Reddy ( AIR 1967 SC 1458 ) Subbarao, C.J. (as he then was) observed "Official arbitrariness is more subversive of the doctrine of equality than statutory discrimination. In respect of a statutory discrimination one knows where he stands, but the wand of official arbitrariness can he waved in all directions indiscriminately." I am, therefore, satisfied that the University has acted arbitrarily in not giving two grace marks to the petitioner. 9. Sri Upadhya has vehemently urged that the petitioner cannot claim to he put at par with Bhagwat Prasad Pandey as subsequent to the main examination of 1988 he (the petitioner) appeared in two supplementary examinations in the subject in question and remained unsuccessful. We are concerned with the denial of the benefit of rule or recommendation permitting the award of grace marks when he appeared in the final professional examination for the first time. Article 14 was observed in its breach when the respondents did not award two grace marks to the petitioner in the main examination. The fundamental right of the petitioner, therefore, was then infringed. It is apparent that had the petitioner been given two grace marks no occasion would have arisen for him to appear in the two supplementary examinations. Surely, by appearing in the supplementary-examinations the petitioner did not waive his fundamental right not to he treated arbitrarily and discriminately. Further, he did not give up his fundamental right to assert that he should he kept at par with Bhagwat Prasad Pandey. It is settled that there can be no waiver of the rights conferred by Article 14 of the Constitution. See Basheshar Nath's case (supra). 10. The petition succeeds and is allowed. Further, he did not give up his fundamental right to assert that he should he kept at par with Bhagwat Prasad Pandey. It is settled that there can be no waiver of the rights conferred by Article 14 of the Constitution. See Basheshar Nath's case (supra). 10. The petition succeeds and is allowed. The respondents shall now allot two grace marks to the petitioner in the subject in question and thereafter declare his result in accordance with law. 11. There shall be no order as to costs.