State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... vs Anu Singh And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 14967 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:33843-DB
 
Court No. - 1
 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 271 of 2023
 
Appellant :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Social Welfare Govt. Of U.P. Civil Secrt. Lko. And Others
 
Respondent :- Anu Singh And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- C.S.C.
 
Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjay Kumar Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.

Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla, J.

C.M. Application No.1 of 2023 (Application for condonation of delay)

(1) Heard Shri V.P. Nag, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the appellants/State authorities and Dr. Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel representing the respondent no.1/writ petitioner.

(2) Having regard to the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application seeking condonation of delay, this Court is of the view that delay has sufficiently been explained.

(3) Accordingly, the application is allowed and delay in filing the special appeal is hereby condoned.

Order on Appeal

(4) By preferring the present special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, the appellants/State authorities have impugned the judgment and order dated 21.09.2022 whereby Writ-C No. 15943 of 2019 filed by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner has been allowed and the orders dated 26.04.2019 and 27.10.2019, rejecting the claim of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner for scholarship and fee reimbursement under the Uttar Pradesh Samanya Varg Dasmottar Chhatravriti Yojna Niyamawali, 2012, have been set-aside by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has also directed the appellant no.2-Director, Social Welfare, Government of U.P., Lucknow to reimburse the scholarship amount to the respondent no.1/writ petitioner, under the said Scheme.

(5) The facts of the case as is borne from the records is that the respondent no.1/writ petitioner took admission in Baiswara Degree College, Lalganj, Raebareli in B.A. Part-I in the academic session 2013-14 and was given the benefit of Student's Scholarship and Fee Reimbursement Scheme. However, without completing the said course, the writ petitioners/respondent no.2 took admission in another course i.e. B.Sc. Part-I in the academic session 2014-15 and also applied to grant her the benefit of Student's Scholarship and Fee Reimbursement Scheme for the academic session 2014-15, but her application was not considered and, as such, she instituted the proceeding of Writ Petition No. 5764 (M/S) of 2015, wherein learned Counsel for the State had stated that as per the scheme, in such a situation, the student concerned has to refund the entire amount of scholarship and accordingly, the said writ petition was disposed of finally vide order dated 15.10.2015 with liberty to the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 to refund entire amount which she had availed of for the academic session 2013-14 and thereafter she may make a fresh application and authority concerned was required to consider and decide the same in accordance with law.

(6) Apparently, pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 15.10.2015 (supra), the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 had refunded the amount of Rs.4700/-, which she had received under Student's Scholarship and Fee Reimbursement Scheme for the academic session 2013-14 for B.A. Part-I and thereafter she claimed for grant of scholarship for the B.Sc. Course, which was, however, rejected vide order dated 27.10.2016.

(7) Not satisfied with the order dated 27.10.2016, the respondent no.1/writ petitioner had instituted the proceeding of Writ Petition No. 26766 (M/S) of 2018, which was disposed of vide order dated 18.09.2018, permitting the writ petitioner/ respondent no.1 to make a fresh detailed representation and the Director, Department of Social Welfare, Government of U.P., Lucknow (appellant no.2) was required to consider and decide the said representation. In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 18.09.2018, the respondent no.1/writ petitioner has preferred a detailed representation on 01.10.2018, which was considered and decided by the Director, Department of Social Welfare, Government of U.P., Lucknow (appellant no.2) vide order dated 26.04.2019.

(8) Challenging these two orders, namely, the order dated 27.10.2016 and the order dated 26.04.2019, whereby the representation of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner was rejected by the Director Social Welfare, Government of U.P., Lucknow (appellant no.2), the respondent no.1/writ petitioner instituted the proceedings of Writ-C No.15943 of 2019, which has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 21.09.2022 with the direction as enumerated in paragraph-4 hereinabove. It is this order dated 21.09.2022, which has been assailed in the intant intra Court appeal.

(9) Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants/State authorities is that the learned Single Judge, while passing the impugned order, erred in not considering the fact that as per Rule6 (iv) of the said scheme, the respondent no.1/writ petitioner was not entitled for fee reimbursement on account of the fact that after receiving scholarship for BA Part-I, she left B.A. course and changed her stream and took admission in B.Sc. Part-I in the same college in 2014-15 and had applied for fee reimbursement. Therefore, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge is liable to be set-aside.

(10) Learned Counsel for the respondent no.1/writ petitioner, on the other hand, has opposed the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants and has argued that the intent of the said scheme is to provide scholarship once. Though respondent/ writ petitioner, while pursuing B.A. Course for the academic session 2013-14, was granted benefit of the said scheme, however, after taking admission in the B.Sc. course in academic session 2014-15, she refunded the amount granted to her under the said scheme as per the liberty granted to her by this Court and thereafter has applied only for grant of scholarship under the said Scheme for pursuing her B.Sc. Course. He has further argued that similarly placed student, namely, Shivam Singh, has been granted the benefit. His submission is that the learned Single Judge has considered the aforesaid facts and has rightly allowed the writ petition vide order dated 21.09.2022.

(11) We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and have also perused the record available before us on this special appeal.

(12) The sole question for consideration in this case is as to whether the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 is entitled to get the benefit of Student's Scholarship and Fee Reimbursement Scheme or not.

(13) Much emphasis has been laid by the learned Counsel for the appellants/respondent no.1 towards Rule 6 (iv) of the Student's Scholarship and Fee Reimbursement Scheme to say that the respondent no.1/writ petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of Student's Scholarship and Fee Reimbursement Scheme. Rule 6 (iv) of the said scheme is extracted herein below :-

"6 ¼iv½ ,sls vH;FkhZ ik= ugh gksaxs tks f'k{kk dk ,d pj.k mrhZ.k djus ds i'pkr f'k{kk ds mlh pj.k esa fdlh nwljs fo"k; esa v?/k;u djus yxsA mngj.kkFkZ& b.Vj vkVZl djus ds ckn b.Vj lkbZl djus yxsa ;k ch0,0 djus ds ckn ch0dke djus yxsa ;k ,d fo"k; esa ,e0,0 djus ds ckn fdlh nwljs fo"k; esa ,e0,0 djus yxsA"

(14) If we translate the aforesaid extract of the aforesaid Rule 6 (iv) in english, the same shall be as follows:-

"6(iv) such candidates will not be eligible, who after passing one stage of a course, start studying any other subject in the same stage of education. For example, after doing Inter Arts, the student starts doing Inter Science or after doing BA, starts doing B.Com. or after doing MA in one subject, starts doing M.A. in another subject"

(15) Submission of the learned Counsel representing the appellants/State authorities is that the respondent no.1/writ petitioner has been granted the benefit of the said scheme when she was studying in B.A. Part-I for the academic session 2013-14. Thus, the respondent no.1/writ petitioner is not entitled to get the said benefit of the scheme in view of Rule 6(iv) of the said Scheme on changing the stream from B.A. Part-I to B.Sc. Part No.I in the academic session 2014-15. We cannot agree with the submission made by learned counsel for appellants/State authorities in this regard.

(16) From a perusal of the record, it is apparent that initially the writ petitioner/ respondent no.1 was granted the benefit of the said scheme when she was pursuing B.A. Part-I in the academic session 2013-14, however, when the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 took admission in B.Sc. Part-I in the academic session 2014-15 again claimed the said benefit, which was not considered, the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 had instituted a proceeding of Writ Petition No. 5764 (M/S) of 2015, wherein learned Counsel represented the State had made a statement that as per the scheme, in such a situation, the student concerned has to refund the entire amount of scholarship given to her/him for pursuing the course in which she/he had taken the admission earlier. On the basis of that statement, the aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 15.10.2015 granting liberty to the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 to refund the entire amount which she has availed of for the academic session 2013-14 and the authority concerned was required to consider and decide the fresh application preferred by the writ petitioner/respondent no.1. Pursuant to the aforesaid order dated 15.10.2015, the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 had refunded the entire amount granted to her under the said scheme and claimed to grant her the benefit of the said scheme for the academic session 2014-15 and 2015-16, however, the representation of the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 was rejected inter alia on the ground that the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 was earlier granted the said benefit. This ground of rejection of the claim of the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 was found to be not correct by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 21.09.2022, mainly on two grounds viz. (i) Rule 6 (iv) of the said Scheme does not deny the benefit of the scheme even if the stream is changed and there is no bar to grant scholarship to the writ petitioner/respondent no.1, particularly when the order was passed earlier on 15.10.2015 (supra) on an agreement that in case the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 refunds the scholarship availed by her in the academic session 2013-14, she would be entitled for the benefit of the scholarship on her pursuing the B.Sc. Course; (ii) in similar case, one Shivam Singh was granted the benefit of scholarship as recorded in the order dated 23.06.2016 passed in Writ Petition No. 14553 of 2016.

(17) Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition by means of the impugned order dated 21.09.2022.

(18) The special appeal being devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

(Om Prakash Shukla, J.)         (Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.)
 
Order Date :- 12.5.2023
 
Ajit/-