JUDGMENT : Shri Vinod Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioners. Shri Vivek Ranjan Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the respondent/State. Shri Aditya Sanghi, learned counsel for respondent No. 4. 2. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard. 3. The petitioners who are pursuing their Master’s Degree Course in Ayurveda (Samhita Siddhant) from Government Autonomous Ayurveda College have filed this petition being aggrieved by the discrimination allegedly meted out by the respondent State by granting them the stipend lesser than their contemporaries passing Post Graduate Degree in Allopathy. 4. The respondent State while not disputing the fact that stipend paid to the students pursuing studies in Allopathy are paid higher stipend than those pursuing studies in Ayurved, have tried to justify their action on the contentions that the junior doctors of Medical Colleges are required to take care of patient in huge number as compared to the patients treated in Ayurvedic College. It is contended that in comparison to Ayurvedic College the indoor patients are far more in number. Thus, the comparison is made on the basis of the patients who visit respective Colleges for treatment, but no Rules/Regulations are commended at to establish that the stipend is fixed on the ratio of patient intake in the College. 5. It is observed that Post Graduate Education of Ayurveda is governed by the Regulations framed by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clauses (i), (j) and (k) of sub-section (1) of section 36 of the Indian Medicine Central Council Act, 1970. 6. For admission for Post Graduate Course in both the pathies are based on competitive examination. And both the courses are strictly conducted as per the norms laid down by the Central Council. For the Allopathy, it is the Medical Council of India and for the Ayurved, the Central Council of Indian Medicine. The parameters for passing the examination in both the parties are similar. 7. That, Regulation 15 of the Indian Medicine Central Council (Post Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations 2016 stipulates that, the stipend and contingency shall be provided at the rate decided by the Central Government for institutes of its control or respective State Government for institutes of its control or University as the case may be. 7. That, Regulation 15 of the Indian Medicine Central Council (Post Graduate Ayurveda Education) Regulations 2016 stipulates that, the stipend and contingency shall be provided at the rate decided by the Central Government for institutes of its control or respective State Government for institutes of its control or University as the case may be. Similarly Regulation 13.3 of the Medical Council of India Postgraduate Medical Education Regulations, 2000 stipulates that the postgraduate students undergoing postgraduate degree/diploma/ superspeciality course shall be paid stipend on par with the stipend being paid to the postgraduate students of State Government Medical Institutions/Central Government Medical Institutions, in the State/Union Territory where the institution is located. It further stipulates that similarly, the matter of grant of leave to Postgraduate students shall be regulated as per the respective State Government rules. 8. As observed supra no formulae or the Rule has been commended at by the respondent State that the stipend is fixed in the ratio of the patient intake. 9. Article 14 of the Constitution no doubt permits a reasonable classification; however, the classification must be founded on (i) an intelligible differentia, which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and (ii) that differential must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. In M.P. Rural Agriculture Extension Officers Association vs. State of M. P., (2004) 4 SCC 646 , it is held :— “14. Article 14, it is trite, does not forbid a reasonable classification. 15. Article 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification subject to the conditions that it is based on an intelligible differentia and that the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. [See Saurabh Chaudri and ors. vs. Union of India.]” 10. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the State to establish that the classification between the students pursuing Post Graduate studies in Ayurved and students pursuing Post Graduate studies in Allopathy are two different classes. 11. In Sube Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2001) 7 SCC 545 , 548 (para 10) it is held. “10. ... It remains to be seen whether the purported classification of existing structures into A, B and C class is a reasonable classification having an intelligible differentia and a rational basis germane to the purpose. 11. In Sube Singh vs. State of Haryana, (2001) 7 SCC 545 , 548 (para 10) it is held. “10. ... It remains to be seen whether the purported classification of existing structures into A, B and C class is a reasonable classification having an intelligible differentia and a rational basis germane to the purpose. If the State Government fails to support its action on the touchstone of the above principle then this decision has to be held as arbitrary and discriminatory. … ” 12. However, since the State has failed to establish that the students pursuing post graduate course in Ayurveda are of different class than that of students pursuing post graduate course in Allopathy, the State cannot be allowed to discriminate them for grant of stipend at par with the students pursuing Postgraduate course in Allopathy. 13. Considering thus, we direct the State to treat the students pursuing Post Graduate in Ayurveda at par with the students pursuing Post Graduate Courses in Allopathy for the purpose of stipend and other benefits. 14. Let steps be taken within three months from the date of communication of this order. 15. Petition is finally disposed of in above terms. Petition allowed.