policies and preferential treatment to some extent; the purpose being clearly to help weaker sections of the Society. In view of the aforesaid purpose, which is not disputed by the State Government, also we find that the differential treatment given out to the two classes of Societies i.e. those who have all members who are literate and those which have even one member who is not literate is not based on a rational criteria and is not an intelligible differential having any nexus with the object sought to be achieved, namely, to help weaker sections of the Society. In fact, it appears that the said Condition No.4E militates against the said object since it would not be unusual and, in fact, would be common that a Labour Cooperative Society, which has been formed for the purpose of securing the well beings of its members, has at-least one member who is not literate. The term “literate” has not been defined in the G.R., but presumably the mere ability to make one signature is not being considered as the person being literate. Obviously, the expectation is that such a person should have ability to read and write documents etc. It is quite possible that one member of a Society may not be literate in this sense and it would be unreasonable to deprive such a Co-operative Society of its opportunity to make a bid for a contract. In the circumstances, the said Condition No.4E is found to be arbitrary and unreasonable and liable to be set aside.
