M.P. Umesh Chandra vs Union Of India
2000 Latest Caselaw 99 Del

JUDGMENT

K. Ramamoorthy, J.

1. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Courtmay graciously be pleased to:-

(a) pass an order to quash and set aside the impugned letter dated 26.6.98.

(b) pass any order, direction or appropriate writ directing the respondents to continue a Fellowship which has been abruptlydiscontinued vide letter dated 26.6.98."

2.The case of the petitioner could be briefly stated thus.

3.The petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste category. He had done post graduation in Journalism and Mass communication. The second respondent, which is constituted for social and educational development of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible persons for overseas fellowship in post graduate studies. The petitioner offered himself as a candidate and he was called for interview on the 3rd of August, 1995. On the 3rd of September, 1996, the petitioner was awarded Overseas Fellowship. His course is for three years and then awardee is to undertake M.Phil/Ph.D. course in Sociology. The petitioner was directed to undergo test of English Language (TOEFL). He was declared successful is that examination.

4.Subsequent to this, there was no response from the second respondent. The petitioner sent a telegram, which is filed as Annexure P-4 to the writ petition. The second respondent issued the following letter on the 26th of June, 1998:-

"Your telegram dated 9.6.98 has been received in this office on10.6.98, wherein, you have stated that you have secured admissionfrom London School of Economic for M.Phil course. In this connection, I regret to inform you that the Governing Body of Dr.Ambedkar Foundation has decided to discontinue the scheme of Dr.Ambedkar overseas Fellowships with immediate effect. The Governing Body has also decided not to send any student abroad forhigher studies including those who have been selected and waitingfor admission. Therefore, the Foundation is not in a position toprovide any financial support to you in this connection. In themeanwhile, the Scheme is being revised and modified scheme willbe advertised soon. This is for your information."

5.This is challenged in the writ petition.

6.The petitioner has stated in the writ petition:

"The petitioner submits that in view of the award of the fellowship he discontinued his doctoral research intended to be registered with the University of Mysore as he would not be in a position to continue the same. The petitioner further submitsthat he incurred heavy expenditure of more than thirty thousandrupees for obtaining travel documents, appearing for TOFEL,visits to Delhi, application fees for Universities Abroad andother correspondence expenditure on fax, telephone etc. Apartfrom the above the petitioner did not appear for other competitive examination in view of the impending overseas studies. THE petitioner had to devote his prime time and sacrifice academiccareer in India for the preparation of the course applied for.

The petitioner submits that he was constantly writing to the respondent organization for suggestions, clarifications and forfurther instructions but the respondent never indicated thepossible discontinuation of the fellowship awarded. In the awardletter it was categorically stated that the period of scholarshipwouldcommenceonlyfrom thedateofjoining theInstitution/University and the fellowship would expire on thedate of completion of the course or returned to India whicheveris earlier. A copy of letters written by the petitioner to therespondent is produced and marked collectively a Annexure P-6 tothis petition."

7.In paragraph 17 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated :

"The petitioner submits that the respondent organization being aninstrumentality of state is duty bound to express fairness inaction without unreasonableness. The respondent organization isliable to honour its commitment and abrupt discontinuation of thefellowship is contrary to the doctrine of "Promissory estoppel".The Hon'ble Supreme Court has reaffirmed this principle in anumber of decisions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Dr.Ashok KumarMaheshwari Vs. State of UP", (1998) 2 SCC 502, has given legalstatus to the definition of promissory estoppel given in Black'sLaw Dictionary."

8.On these facts, the petitioner seeks the relief prayed for, as extracted above.

9.In the counter-affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is stated that the second respondent had taken the decision after taking into account all relevant facts. The petitioner had approached this Court only after the letter was issued by the second respondent. No reasons had been given for the delay of 15 months. It is stated that the policy decision, by a competent authority, was communicated to the petitioner, and that decision was taken on the state of affairs with respect to the fellowship so far availed of by seven scholars. The details about those persons are given in the counter-affidavit.

10. It is stated in paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit :

"It is submitted that even though initially only the abovementioned lacunae led to the reconsideration of the Scheme, ventually a thorough and comprehensive review of the Scheme was undertaken encompassing not merely the abovementioned lacunae but soas to also bring in certain other desirable features and topreclude certain other lacunae which were revealed on a reconsideration and also to tailor the scheme to further the objects ofthe foundation with a better effectiveness. The revised SCHEMEwas deliberated upon and accepted for implementation by the GB inits meeting dated 8.12.1997 and 3.3.1998 and is now under finalisation."

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Jose Vergese, submitted that the second respondent having lulled the petitioner into a false sense of expectation of getting the fellowship, cannot issue an order like the one that is impugned. The petitioner had every right to legitimately expect the second respondent to act in a reasonable manner. The learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner could rely on principle of 'promissory estoppel'.

12. The learned counsel for the second respondent, Ms. Shruti Pandey, that the Government of India and the second, respondent, taking into account the manner in which the candidates who were granted fellowship in yesteryears, wanted to have an overhauling of the entire system and that was the reason why communication was sent to the petitioner in June, 1998, and it cannot be contended by the petitioner that for some reasons the petitioner alone was not granted fellowship.

13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality or irrationality in the decision taken by the second respondent. The petitioner having kept quite for nearly 15 months and approached this court only on the 28th of September, 1999. It cannot be said that, in law, the decision taken by the respondent is unreasonable. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

14. There shall be no order as to costs.