Article 15 of Chapter 116 of the General Statutes authorizes a scholarship at any State educational institution for an *647 “eligible child” of a World War veteran as defined by G.S. 116-149 and classified by G.S. 116-151. It is concedеd that petitioner’s father is a veteran as defined by G.S. 116-149(a). It is also conceded that petitioner does not meet the requirements of G.S. 116-149 (b) which defines an “eligible child” as:
“(1) A child of a veteran who was a legal resident of North Carolina at the time of said veteran’s entrance into the armed forces, or
“(2) A veteran’s child who was born in North Carolina and has lived in North Carolina continuously since birth.”
The statute authorizes the Commission to waive requirement No. 2 under certаin circumstances which have no application to this cаse.
It is petitioner’s contention that in thus limiting eligibility for scholarships, G.S. 116-149 (b) unlawfully disсriminates against her and other children of veterans who have acquired residence in North Carolina since their discharge from service. She alleges in her petition that the legislature has created an arbitrary and unreasonable classification which violates article I, § 17 of the North Carolina Constitution as well as the due process and equal protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the United States Constitution.
It is a well understood rule of constitutional law that the General Assembly may distinguish, select and classify objeсts of legislation provided such classifications are reasonable and just and apply uniformly to all members of the affected class. Inequality does! not render a statute unconstitutional if the sеlections are not arbitrary and capricious. The presumption is that any act passed by the legislature is constitutional, and the court will not strike it down if such legislation can be upheld on any reasonable ground.
State v. Warren,
By the challenged statute, North Carolina has attеmpted to provide for the education of children
of her quota
of onе-hundred percent disabled veterans, that is, those veterans who wеre residents of this State at the time they were inducted or whose children were born and remained in the State.
Prima facie,
this is a reasonable distinction.
Gianatasio v. Kaplan,
However, in no event is petitioner entitled tо obtain from the court the scholarship she seeks. First, she may not quеstion the constitutionality of the Act upon which she bases her clаim.
Convent v. Winston-Salem,
The judgment of the Superior Court is
Affirmed.