Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 99 (DEL)

M. P. UMESH CHANDRA v. UNION OF INDIA

2000-01-31

B.K.RAMAMOORTHY

body2000
K. Ramamoorthy,j. ( 1 ) THE petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- "it is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon ble Court may 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 abruptly discontinued vide letter dated 26. 6. 1998. " ( 2 ) THE case of the petitioner could be briefly stated thus. ( 3 ) THE petitioner belongs to a Scheduled Caste category. He has 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 the 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 in 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 on 10. 6. 98, wherein, you have stated that you have secured admission from 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 for higher studies including those who have been selected and waiting for admission. Therefore, the Foundation is not in a position to provide any financial support to you in this connection. In the meanwhile, the Scheme is being revised and modified scheme will be advertised soon. This is for your information. " ( 5 ) THIS is challenged in the writ petition. Therefore, the Foundation is not in a position to provide any financial support to you in this connection. In the meanwhile, the Scheme is being revised and modified scheme will be 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 submits that he incurred heavy expenditure of more than thirty thousand rupees for obtaining travel documents, appearing for TOFEL, visits to Delhi, application fees for Universities Abroad and other correspondence expenditure on fax, telephone etc. Apart from 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 academic career 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 for further instructions but the respondent never indicated the possible discontinuation of the fellowship awarded. In the award letter it was categorically stated that the period of scholarship would commence only from the date of joining the Institution/university and the fellowship would expire on the date of completion of the course or returned to India whichever is earlier. Acopy of letters written by the petitioner to the respondent is produced and marked collectively a Annexure P-6 to this petition. " ( 7 ) IN paragraph 17 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated: "the petitioner submits that the respondent organization being an instrumentality of state is duty bound to express fairness in action without unreasonableness. The respondent organization is liable to honour its commitment and abrupt discontinuation of the fellowship is contrary to the doctrine of "promissory estoppel". The Hon ble Supreme Court has reaffirmed this principle in a number of decisions. The Hon ble Supreme Court in "dr. Ashok Kumar Maheshwari vs. State of UP", (1998) 2 SCC 502 , has given legal status to the definition of promissory estoppel given in Black s Law Dictionary. " ( 8 ) ON these facts, the petitioner seeks the relief prayed for, as extracted above. The Hon ble Supreme Court in "dr. Ashok Kumar Maheshwari vs. State of UP", (1998) 2 SCC 502 , has given legal status to the definition of promissory estoppel given in Black s Law Dictionary. " ( 8 ) ON these facts, the petitioner seeks the relief prayed for, as extracted above. ( 9 ) IN the couter-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 respon- dent. 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 II of the counter-affidavit: "it is submitted that even though initially only the abovementioned lacunae led to the reconsideration of the Scheme, eventually a thorough and comprehensive review of the Scheme was undertaken encompassing not merely the abovementioned lacunae but so as to also bring in certain other desirable features and to preclude certain other lacunae which were revealed on a reconsideration and also to tailor the scheme to further the objects of the foundation with a better effectiveness. The revised SCHEME was deliberated upon and accepted for implementation by the GB in its 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. 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 had 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.