JUDGMENT : A.K. JAYASANKARAN NAMBIAR, J. 1. The issue involved in these cases concerns the interpretation to be placed on a clause in an agreement entered into between self-financing colleges in the State and the Government. The agreement is one entered into for apportionment of seats in the MBBS course in the self-financing colleges between the Government and the management concerned. The particular clause with which we are concerned in these cases is one that obliges the college concerned to extend a fee concession to identified categories of students from among those who have been allotted to said college under the Government Quota. 2. The process of admission of students to the MBBS course offered by various Colleges in the State is regulated by the Prospectus for Admission to Professional Degree Courses published by the State Government for the particular academic year. It is issued from the Office of the Controller for Entrance Examinations. The Prospectus provides for the mode of allotment of students by the Government to seats in Government, Government aided and Private self-financing medical colleges. The right of the Government to make allotment of students to seats in self-financing medical colleges stems from the Prospectus read with the provisions of the Agreement for seat sharing and fee fixation entered into between the Government and the self-financing college concerned. The allotment of students to the said seats is based purely on merit and from the merit list prepared by the State Government. 3. The fee that is payable by a student who has been allotted a seat by the Government in any College is determined annually by the State Government through the Admissions Supervisory Committee and from the fee so fixed, a further concession can be obtained by students who satisfy the criteria specified for fee concession in the individual agreements entered into between the self-financing college concerned and the State Government. 4. In these cases we are concerned with the agreements entered into between the State Government and Self-financing medical Colleges viz. P.K. Das Institute of Medical Science, Vaniyamkulam, Ottappalam, Palakkad, MES Medical College, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram District and DM Wayanad Institute of Medical Science, Meppadi, Wayanad. The said agreements contained a clause that obliged the College concerned to offer fee concessions to certain identified categories of students such as SC/ST, BPL and the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC). P.K. Das Institute of Medical Science, Vaniyamkulam, Ottappalam, Palakkad, MES Medical College, Perinthalmanna, Malappuram District and DM Wayanad Institute of Medical Science, Meppadi, Wayanad. The said agreements contained a clause that obliged the College concerned to offer fee concessions to certain identified categories of students such as SC/ST, BPL and the Socially and Educationally Backward Classes (SEBC). The said clause reads as follows: “The Educational Agency agree to collect annual fees at the following concessional rates from the students admitted under the 50% Government merit Quota, during the entire course period:- (a) Students belonging to BPL/SEBC family as per state Government norms, not exceeding 40% seats of Govt. Merit Quota, [i.e. 14% (7 out of 50 seats) from BPL families and 26% (13 out of 50 seats) from SEBC students Rs. 25,000/- per annum If there are no sufficient candidates in the BPL category above, candidates with lowest income based on income certificate issued by the competent revenue authority will be considered. (b) Other Candidates including those who have got admission under SC/ST reservation categories not exceeding 60% seats of Govt. Merit Quota, [i.e. 8% (4 out of 50 seats) from SC and 2% (1 out of 50 seats from ST and 50% (25 out of 50 seats from General Merit. Rs. 2,50,000 per annum. Fee for SC/ST Candidates to be paid by the Government of Kerala. 5. The Colleges concerned would contend that while the said clause obliges them to extend fee concession to the prescribed percentage of students in any of the specified categories, they are free to identify the students eligible for fee concession based on a criteria that looks to the actual income of the students who fall within the specified category. The stand of the State Government, on the other hand, is that once the students have been identified as falling within a particular category-SEBC in the instant cases - their further entitlement for fee concession has to be based solely on their inter se merit, as was determined in the admission process. 6. W.A. No. 2129/2018, W.A. No. 344/2019 and W.A. No. 403/2019 arise form a common judgment dated 6.8.2018 of a learned Single judge in W.P. (C) Nos. 31793/2016 and 31801/2016. 6. W.A. No. 2129/2018, W.A. No. 344/2019 and W.A. No. 403/2019 arise form a common judgment dated 6.8.2018 of a learned Single judge in W.P. (C) Nos. 31793/2016 and 31801/2016. W.P. (C) No. 31793/2016 was preferred by five students who had secured admission to the MBBS course during the academic year 2015-16 and were allotted seats in the Government quota at the P.K. Das Institute of Medical Science, Ottappalam. They were ranked 1598, 1600, 1603, 1612 and 1616 respectively in the Entrance Examination that year and they all belonged to the SEBC category, as per the norms specified by the State Government. In their writ petition, they impugned the action of the College and Government in identifying students who had secured higher ranks in the entrance exam [R6 - R11] and were allotted to the College under the SEBC category, for the benefit of fee concession. It was their case in the writ petition that inasmuch as the students ranked higher to them in the SEBC category had annual family incomes that were substantially more than that of the petitioners, the petitioners ought to have been granted the benefit of fee concession ignoring their lower rank in the SEBC category and taking note of their weaker financial position. Similar was the case of the three writ petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 31801/2016 who had been allotted seats in the DM Wayanad Institute of Medical Sciences. They were aggrieved by a similar identification of respondents 6 & 7 in that writ petition, for the benefit of fee concession. 7. The learned Single Judge who heard the matters, found force in the contention of the writ petitioners and held as follows: “xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 9. Once identification of group based on social backwardness is over, all such candidates who form into a class cannot be grouped together as same class for the purpose of fee concession. The fee concession is given not only for the candidates belonging to SEBC but also extended to forward community. That is the reason, fee concession is given to 14% (7 out of 100 seats) for the students of BPL families. The object of fee concession is to enable students to pay tuition fee applicable in Self Financing Institutions. In comparison with Government institutions, Self financing institutions levy higher fee for the courses conducted by them. 10. That is the reason, fee concession is given to 14% (7 out of 100 seats) for the students of BPL families. The object of fee concession is to enable students to pay tuition fee applicable in Self Financing Institutions. In comparison with Government institutions, Self financing institutions levy higher fee for the courses conducted by them. 10. Unequals within the social groups based on income criteria cannot be treated at par based on the ranks obtained in the entrance examination. Individual income criteria alone need be considered for granting fee concession under economic benefits. Otherwise, those who are better off will push the worse off person to gain such benefits. Thus, I have to conclude that rank obtained in the entrance examination cannot be a criteria at all to confer fee concession benefits. Those who are having lowest income among the group should be given the benefit of fee concession. The Government is directed to reconsider the matter granting benefits in the light of the above within two months. Needless to say all students seeking benefits must be given opportunity of hearing. Impugned orders are set aside. These writ petitions are disposed of as above.” 8. It is against the said judgment that W.A. No. 344/2019 and W.A. No. 403/2019 have been preferred by the State Government and W.A. No. 2129/2018 by the respondents 6-11 in W.P. (C) No. 31793/2016. 9. W.A. No. 2125/2018 is preferred by the MES, Kozhikode aggrieved by the judgment dated 6.9.2018 of another learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 23744/2018. The said writ petition was preferred by MES and a student who had secured admission to the MBBS course in the MES Medical College at Perinthalmanna, impugning Ext.P9 order dated 10.11.2017 of the State Government that directed self-financing medical colleges who had entered into agreements with the Government to allow fee concession to students admitted in the SEBC category for the academic year 2016-17 on the basis of their inter se medical ranking in that category, as was done in the previous year. The students who would have benefited from the direction in Ext.P9 order were arrayed as respondents 3 to 5 in the said writ petition. The said students have also separately preferred W.P. (C) No. 39587/2018 seeking a direction from this Court to the College to act upon Ext.P9 order of the Government. The students who would have benefited from the direction in Ext.P9 order were arrayed as respondents 3 to 5 in the said writ petition. The said students have also separately preferred W.P. (C) No. 39587/2018 seeking a direction from this Court to the College to act upon Ext.P9 order of the Government. Before the latter writ petition was filed, however, W.P. (C) No. 23744/2018 came to be decided by a learned Single Judge who, after considering the rival submissions, found as follows at paragraph 5 of her judgment: “xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 5. The contentions of the petitioners that financial condition of the family alone should be looked into and that the consideration of merit of the candidate for the purpose of availing fee concession would amount to violation of the rights of the third petitioner, according to me, are pure misconceptions. Admissions to professional courses are generally to be made on the basis of merit. Fee concession is, as is evident from the nomenclature itself, granted to students, who do not have the financial capacity to meet the huge commitment necessary for undertaking professional education at the rates demanded by self-financing colleges. For deciding the eligibility of students for the concessional rates of fees, the orders under challenge provide that their merit is also to be looked into. I find no illegality of any nature in the said prescription. In the absence of any allegation that any student, who is not entitled to the benefit of fee concession, or in other words, who has income exceeding the upper limit prescribed for availing the benefit having been admitted in concessional seats, I am of the opinion that the challenge raised is completely misconceived. In any view of the matter, petitioners 1 and 2 have no manner of right to challenge the orders. The challenge raised by the third petitioner is devoid of merits. The writ petition therefore fails and is accordingly dismissed.” 10. The appellants in W.A. No. 2125/2018, as already noted, assail the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge. As the issue was pending before us in the appeal, we directed the Registry to post W.P. (C) No. 39587/2018 also before us for consideration along with the appeal. 11. We have heard the learned senior counsel Sri. N.N. Sugunapalan for the appellants in W.A. No. 2129/2018, Sri. As the issue was pending before us in the appeal, we directed the Registry to post W.P. (C) No. 39587/2018 also before us for consideration along with the appeal. 11. We have heard the learned senior counsel Sri. N.N. Sugunapalan for the appellants in W.A. No. 2129/2018, Sri. Babu Karukapadath, the learned counsel for the appellants in W.A. No. 2125/2018, Sri. Roshen D. Alexander, the learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P. (C) No. 39587/2018 and respondent Nos. 3-5 in W.A. No. 2125/2018, the learned Government Pleader Sri. Tek Chand for the appellants in W.A. Nos. 344/2019 and 403/2019 and Sri. P. Sreekumar for the respondents in W.A. No. 403/2019. 12. On a consideration of the rival submissions, we find that as per the Prospectus issued by the State Government to regulate the admission process to the MBBS course in the State of Kerala, there is no obligation on any self-financing medical college in the State to offer fee concessions to any student who had been allotted to the said college against the quota of seats earmarked for the Government. The said obligation of the self-financing institutions concerned stems only from the relevant clause in the seat sharing and fee fixation agreement entered into by them with the Government. In that sense, the obligation to offer fee concession to the specified categories of students is purely contractual in nature. Consequently, we have to interpret the clause in the agreement on the principles of interpretation of contracts. When we look at the issue thus, we have to remind ourselves that the intention of the parties to the contract have to be gathered from the express words used in the contract and it is only if the words used are ambiguous that the need arises to look outside the contract, to gather the intention of the parties. Also, in that event, if there are two views possible we have to choose that view which closely accords with the purpose of the contract and which does not occasion an illegal or unconstitutional result. 13. When we analyse the relevant clause in the contract, we find that the self-financing institutions in the instant case had agreed to offer the concessional fee of Rs. 25,000/- p.a. to 26% of the students allotted to their institution under the SEBC category. 13. When we analyse the relevant clause in the contract, we find that the self-financing institutions in the instant case had agreed to offer the concessional fee of Rs. 25,000/- p.a. to 26% of the students allotted to their institution under the SEBC category. The fee concession clause in the agreement is silent as regards the manner in which the 26% of students chosen for fee concession will be identified from among those who fall under the said category. The object of the clause being to provide fee concession to deserving students for pursuit of their medical education, the question that arises is whether the choice should be of those whose financial position is worse or of those who have proven themselves as more meritorious, academically so to speak. In our view, had the choice to be made from among a group of students who were categorised on criteria other than their respective financial position, the institutions would have been justified in identifying those with lesser family income for the conferment of the benefit of fee concession. In the instant cases, however, the choice to be made is from among a group of students whose very categorisation as SEBC involved an assessment of their financial position since they were obliged to produce non-creamy layer certificates, over and above the certificates showing their social and educational backwardness, for categorisation under the SEBC category. It is also relevant to note that a fee concession based purely on income criteria is also separately offered to students who belong to BPL families. Thus the agreement itself indicates those categories of students in respect of whom the income criteria is to be applied for identifying the beneficiaries for fee concession. The income criteria not being one indicated for identifying the beneficiaries under the SEBC category, we have to presume that it was not intended to be applied to the said category. Viewed in this backdrop we are of the view that when it comes to a choice of students from among those who admittedly fall under the category of SEBC, the criteria to be adopted must be their inter se merit based on their ranking in the entrance examination. Among those that are equally eligible for the benefit, the more meritorious must be chosen. Among those that are equally eligible for the benefit, the more meritorious must be chosen. Such an interpretation, would in our view, accord with the object of the regulatory measures that are in place to regulate admissions to medical courses in the State. In holding this view we draw support from the judgment of the Supreme Court in E.V. Chinnaiah vs. State of A.P. and Others, (2005) 1 SCC 394 where, while discussing the legality of an Ordinance issued by the State of A.P. dividing 57 castes enumerated in the Presidential List into 4 group based on inter se backwardness and fixing separate quotas in reservation for each of those groups, it was held by the Court that as per the Scheme under Article 341 of our Constitution, castes once included in the Presidential list form a class by themselves. If they are one class under the Constitution, any division of these classes of persons based on any consideration would amount to tinkering with the Presidential List. 14. We might also refer to a recent Division Bench judgment of this Court in Amla R. vs. Union of India and Others, 2019 (3) KHC 540 where this Court considered the issue of whether the office of the Accountant General could make a comparative study from among claimants for compassionate appointment while appointing such persons to the 5% of vacancies to posts in the said Department. Answering the question in the negative the Court held: “xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 12. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal was not justified in rejecting the claim for the reason that the petitioner was studying for LLB equipped educationally to make a living for herself. The learned CGC submits that there were other more deserving candidates, who were given employment in place of the petitioner. The authorities cannot make a comparative study as to who among the claimants for appointment on compassionate ground are more deserving. They do not have such an adjudicatory power. All that they can determine is whether the applicant claiming appointment on compassionate ground is eligible and coming within the criteria fixed for appointment under the scheme for dying-in-harness. In case the applicant is found eligible, she has to be empanelled among the persons who have laid their claim for such appointment. They do not have such an adjudicatory power. All that they can determine is whether the applicant claiming appointment on compassionate ground is eligible and coming within the criteria fixed for appointment under the scheme for dying-in-harness. In case the applicant is found eligible, she has to be empanelled among the persons who have laid their claim for such appointment. The authorities cannot exceed the limit of 5% of the total vacancies arising, for appointment on compassionate grounds. But, in case the applicant falls within the criteria required for compassionate appointment, she is to be empanelled in the list, and she could be given employment in the following year or in the year next to that in accordance with the seniority among the claimants, who seek appointment on compassionate ground. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx” 15. In the instant cases, we are dealing with a slightly different situation, and with a clause that requires the self-financing institutions to choose a few from among a homogeneous group, for extending the benefit of fee concession. In our view, the benefit must go to the most deserving in the said group, as identified through the criteria of merit, the criteria of lesser income having already been adopted while offering concessions to students in the BPL category. 16. Resultantly, we allow W.A. Nos. 2129/2018, 344/2019 and 403/2019, by setting aside the judgment dated 6.8.2018 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) Nos. 31793/2016 and 31801/2016. W.A. No. 2125/2018 is dismissed by upholding the judgment dated 6.9.2018 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 23744/2018 for the reasons mentioned in the said judgment as supplemented by the reasons in this judgment. W.P. (C) No. 39587/2018 is allowed by directing the respondent College to grant fee concession to SEBC students based on our judgment in W.A. No. 2125/2018.