Sahi Ram vs Indian Agricultural Research ...
2011 Latest Caselaw 328 Del

              *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                          Date of decision: 20th January, 2011

+                                 W.P.(C) 1090/2010

SAHI RAM                                                       ..... Petitioner
                            Through:         Mr. Deepak Anand & Mr. Varun
                                             Singh, Advocates.

                                       versus

 INDIAN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
INSTITUTE                                    ..... Respondent
                 Through:    Ms. Jasmine Ahmed with Mr.
                             Ramesh Gopinathan, Advocates.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1.       Whether reporters of Local papers may
         be allowed to see the judgment?                    No

2.       To be referred to the reporter or not?             No

3.       Whether the judgment should be reported            No
         in the Digest?

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.

1. The petition impugns the order dated 3 rd February, 2010 of the

respondent declining the award of IARI Junior Scholarship to the petitioner.

The petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the respondent to grant such

scholarship to the petitioner.

2. The petitioner had done Graduation in B.Sc. (Agriculture) from

Rajasthan Agriculture University, Bikaner in the year 2004. The petitioner

in the Academic Year 2006-2007 applied for and was admitted to M.Sc.

(Agricultural Studies) programme of the respondent Institute. As per the

W.P.(C) 1090/2010

Postgraduate Calendar for the year 2005-2006 of the respondent Institute

(and which the petitioner claims to be applicable to admissions in the year

2006-2007), scholarships/fellowships are offered as financial assistance to

the Postgraduate students at the respondent Institute to assist as many as

students as possible who have a good academic record and who are making

diligent efforts to pursue higher education. The scholarship under Clause

15.3 is awarded by the Dean and the Joint Director (Education) of the

respondent Institute on the advice of the "Standing Committee of

Scholarships, Financial Assistance and Academic Progress" after taking into

consideration the merit of each applicant based initially on his admission

and subsequently on his performance at the school. The petitioner was

granted such scholarship.

3. As per the rules relating to the scholarship aforesaid, the payment of

scholarship/fellowship was to be reviewed at the end of 3rd trimester and

only those students were entitled to continue getting scholarship/fellowship

who had maintained the Overall Grade Point Average (OGPA) of 6.50 out

of 10 at the end of 3rd trimester. The students were also required to maintain

the minimum OGPA of 6 out of 10 at the end of 3 rd trimester to continue on

the Postgraduate School rolls.

4. The petitioner at the end of the 3rd trimester did not have the OGPA of

6.50 to continue with the scholarship and also did not have the minimum

OGPA of 6.00 to continue with the course. Accordingly the name of the

W.P.(C) 1090/2010

petitioner was struck off from the programme. According to the petitioner,

he could not achieve the target owing to then being inflicted with a

Neurological disease owing whereto he was unable to write properly and

thus failed in the Annual Examination.

5. The petitioner claims that he thereafter got himself treated and applied

again to the respondent Institute for fresh admission in the Postgraduate

programme i.e. M.Sc. (Computer Applications) in the Academic Year 2009-

2010. The petitioner claims that though he had the 8th Rank in the All India

Entrance Examination conducted for the said purpose but was declined

admission leading him to then file W.P.(C) No.10732/2009 in this Court

seeking direction to the respondent Institute to grant admission to him. The

respondent Institute upon receipt of notice of the writ petition granted

admission to the petitioner and accordingly the said writ petition was

withdrawn by the petitioner.

6. The case of the petitioner is that upon such re-admission to the

Postgraduate programme, though he under the rules aforesaid was again

entitled to the IARI Scholarship but has been declined to the petitioner.

7. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that the scholarship has

been denied to him for the reason of his having gained admission in the

Postgraduate programme for the second time after having failed in the

programme earlier. He contends with reference to the Chapter 15 of the

Postgraduate Calendar for the year 2005-2006 of the respondent Institute

W.P.(C) 1090/2010

(and which is stated to be applicable to admissions in academic year 2009-

2010 also) that the rules therein nowhere prohibit the grant of scholarship in

such a situation and all students admitted to the M.Sc. Programme are ipso

facto entitled to IARI scholarship. Reliance is placed on Clause15.15 titled

"Termination of the scholarship" wherefrom also it is contended that there is

no provision for termination of scholarship upon re-admission into the same

programme.

8. "Scholarship" by its very nature, is an assistance, help, boost,

backing, encouragement, grant, monetary aid and not a right of a student.

Scholarships to students for education are granted by several

persons/bodies/institutions and grant whereof is in the absolute discretion of

the giver and is not justiciable . However, respondent being a "State" within

the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, cannot act

whimsically and is bound by its Rules regarding grant of scholarship and

cannot act arbitrarily. However while interpreting the Rules also and to see

whether they have been violated, the nature of grant cannot be forgotten.

This is also confirmed from Clause 15.15.1 (iv) which empowers

withdrawal of scholarship if found negligent or guilty of unbecoming

conduct, Clause 15.15.3 which prohibits beneficiary of scholarship from

leaving the course/programme before completion and Clause 15.15.4 which

prohibits beneficiary of scholarship from accepting any post/other

scholarship without permission.

W.P.(C) 1090/2010

9. I do not find any error in the decision of the respondent Institute to

decline scholarship to the petitioner for the reason of the petitioner after

having earlier availed the scholarship but having failed to complete the

course. The petitioner having availed the financial assistance once and

which has been wasted upon the petitioner not completing the course, even

though entitled under the Rules of the respondent Institute for re-admission,

cannot claim the scholarship a second time.

10. The respondent in its counter affidavit, in support of its decision has

relied upon the term of the Information Bulletin published by Indian Council

for Agricultural Research (ICAR) of the Entrance Examination for academic

year 2009-10 for admission to Post Graduate programmes including in

respondent Institute, providing that awardees of Scholarship of "last year"

even if in merit will not be awarded scholarship again. The counsel for the

petitioner has vehemently contended that the same does not apply to award

of scholarships by respondent Institute but applies only to award of

scholarships by ICAR. However, I find that the Entrance Examination for

the year 2009-10 through which the petitioner gained admission was held by

ICAR only and the terms of admission expressly bar award of scholarship a

second time.

11. Even otherwise, this Court would not interfere in the decision of the

Academic Authorities as long as the same is based on some reasons. The

reason given in the present case is valid. The petitioner has already once

W.P.(C) 1090/2010

availed the scholarship and the counsel for the petitioner admits that the

benefits then availed by the petitioner were retained by the petitioner and not

reimbursed to the respondent Institute. The petitioner if wants to have a

second chance, would have to have the same on the terms prescribed for

payment of fee.

12. The counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is a

deserving candidate and is in need of scholarship owing to heavy

expenditure being incurred on his medical treatment. The same is

controverted by the counsel for the respondent. Even if that be the case, the

remedy of the petitioner is to apply to the respondent Institute for

scholarship on a compassionate ground and not to claim the scholarship as a

matter of right as is being done till now, including by filing of the present

petition.

The petition is therefore dismissed but with no order as to costs.

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) JANUARY 20, 2011 pp

W.P.(C) 1090/2010