Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1033 (MP)

Priyanka Jaiswal v. State of M. P.

2004-12-17

K.K.LAHOTI

body2004
ORDER K.K. Lahoti, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed following reliefs in this petition: (i) It is therefore prayed that the impugned order 27-2-2004 (Annexure P/4) may kindly be quashed. Further the respondents be directed to continue the scholarship of the petitioner till the completion of her B.E. Course. (ii) This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass any such other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner belongs to Other Backward Class(OBC). She applied for admission in B.E. course and appeared in Pre Engineering Test in the year 2001. She was successful in the test and got admission against reserve seat for other backward class female quota in the Hitkarini College of Engineering and Technology, Jabalpur in the year 2001. The State Government announced certain benefits in respect of fees by Annexure P/l. Para 3 of Annexure P/l is relevant by which the State Government issued instructions that if the income of parents from all sources is below Rs. 25,000/- per annum of a student belonging to O.B.C. then the entire tuition fee shall be compensated by the Tribal Welfare Department. The petitioner was extended the benefit by way of scholarship. In the year 2001-02, the petitioner was given scholarship of Rs. 26,890/- as per Annexure P/4. In the year 2002-03, the scholarship was increased to Rs. 29,280/- and was paid to the petitioner as is apparent from the perusal of Annexure P/3. The petitioner got the aforesaid scholarship in the years 2001-02 and 2002-03. In the 3rd year of B.E. course, petitioner applied for the scholarship, but she was informed that the scholarship will not be given to her because she took admission against payment seat and on the basis of the revised policy Annexure P/8 dated 26th September, 2003, the petitioner was denied with the scholarship. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner filed a representation Annexure P/5 and thereafter filed this petition. 3. Respondents on notice filed a reply and contended that in view of the amended Rules published in M.P. Gazette of 26th September, 2003 Annexure R/l, the petitioner is not entitled for scholarship. The criteria, as per Annexure R/l, have changed and as per Rules, the students, who got admission against payment seat, are not entitled for the scholarship. 3. Respondents on notice filed a reply and contended that in view of the amended Rules published in M.P. Gazette of 26th September, 2003 Annexure R/l, the petitioner is not entitled for scholarship. The criteria, as per Annexure R/l, have changed and as per Rules, the students, who got admission against payment seat, are not entitled for the scholarship. As rules have changed, in these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled for the scholarship for the academic session 2003-2004 and onwards. 4. Respondent No. 4 contended that it has no concerned with the matter as the scholarship has to be awarded by the State Government and respondent No. 4 has no role in the matter and has been unnecessarily impleaded as party. 5. The learned counsel for petitioner submitted: (1) that the petitioner was allowed scholarship as per Annexure P/l issued for the academic session 2001-2002, by which it was declared that the entire tuition fee will be compensated to the petitioner. The petitioner was allowed scholarship. The same scheme was reiterated by Annexure P/2 dated 27-2-2003 and the petitioner was allowed scholarship continuously for two years. In the circumstances, depriving petitioner during prosecuting of her course will cause serious prejudice to her. 6. That the petitioner belongs to other backward class. Her parents income is below Rs. 20,000/- as is apparent from the perusal of income certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sihora (Annexure P/9). The respondents once announced and promised for the scholarship cannot deprive the petitioner in the mid of the course with the scholarship. This will cause petitioner a serious set back as the parents of the petitioner are unable to pay tuition fee. The petitioner being meritorious is entitled for the reimbursement of tuition fee as promised by the State Government vide Annexures P/l and P/2. If such provision would not have been introduced in the year 2001-02, the petitioner could not have taken admission in the course. The tuition fee is Rs. 25,500/-. The payment of the aforesaid amount by the parents is beyond their financial capacity. If the petitioner is deprived with the scholarship at this juncture, she has to leave her studies without completing the course. 7. The tuition fee is Rs. 25,500/-. The payment of the aforesaid amount by the parents is beyond their financial capacity. If the petitioner is deprived with the scholarship at this juncture, she has to leave her studies without completing the course. 7. That even from the perusal of the notification (Annexure P/8) Annexure R/l filed along with the return, the State Government has not deprived the students who were getting scholarship on the date of issuance of the notification, as is apparent from Rule 7.1 and the petitioner is entitled for continuance of the scholarship till she completes the course as per Rules 7.1,7.2 and 7.3. 8. In reply, the learned counsel appearing for respondents reiterated their contentions as raised in the return. 9. To appreciate the contentions of the parties, it is not in dispute that the petitioner belongs to O.B.C. category and income of her parents is less than Rs. 20,000/- per annum. The annual tuition fee for the course is nearabout Rs. 28,500/-. As per income certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer, the parents of the petitioner cannot bear the burden of tuition-fee of the petitioner. The petitioner is also having no other source of income. At the time when the petitioner got admission in the Engineering College, policy of the State Government was to provide scholarship to such students who belong to OBC category. On the aforesaid premises, the petitioner took a decision to prosecute such costly course and got her admission and studied for more than 2 years. For initial two sessions, she was allowed scholarship, but in the 3rd year, she has been deprived with her scholarship in view of the notification Annexure P/8. Vide Annexure P/8, the scholarship rules have been substituted with effect from 6th July, 2003. The entire object of the Rules is to provide financial help to the students belonging to backward class who are unable to complete their education without such scholarship. The Rules are applicable to the permanent residents of Madhya Pradesh. As per Rule 3.10, the students whose parents' annual income is not more than Rs. 25,000/- per annum, are entitled for scholarship. Rule 3.15 provides that the students, who got admission against payment seat, will not be entitled for the scholarship. Rule 7.1 provides that the scholarship once allowed will continue till the completion of the course. As per Rule 3.10, the students whose parents' annual income is not more than Rs. 25,000/- per annum, are entitled for scholarship. Rule 3.15 provides that the students, who got admission against payment seat, will not be entitled for the scholarship. Rule 7.1 provides that the scholarship once allowed will continue till the completion of the course. The conditions for the grant of scholarship are that his/her conduct should be maintained as good and the students will attend the college regularly. The scholarship shall be renewed every year provided the students continue with the course and are promoted to the next class. The students who failed in the examination will be entitled for the scholarship on promoting to the next class, but will not be entitled for the scholarship in case the students fail second time or onwards. The entire purpose of Annexure P/8 is to provide financial help to the other backward class students who are unable to pay their tuition-fee. If the petitioner at this juncture is deprived scholarship the only consequence will be that either she has to arrange money from other sources or to leave the course. The financial condition of the parents as per certificate is not good so that the parents may bear the burden of the tuition-fee. The Apex Court in K.C. Vasanth Kumar and another vs. State of Karnataka, 1985 (Supp) SCC 714 considering similar circumstances held: If on a fresh determination some castes or communities have to go out of the list of backward classes prepared for Articles 15(4) and 16(4), the Government may still pursue the policy of amelioration of weaker sections of the population amongst them in accordance with the directive principle contained in Article 46. There are in all castes and communities poor people who if they are given adequate opportunity and training may be able to compete successfully with persons belonging to richer classes. The Government may provide for them liberal grants of scholarships, free studentships, free boarding and lodging facilities, free uniforms, free mid-day meals etc. to make the life of poor students comfortable. The Government may also provide extra tutorial facilities, stationery and books free of cost and library facilities. The Government may provide for them liberal grants of scholarships, free studentships, free boarding and lodging facilities, free uniforms, free mid-day meals etc. to make the life of poor students comfortable. The Government may also provide extra tutorial facilities, stationery and books free of cost and library facilities. These and other steps should be taken in the lower classes so that by the time a student appears for the qualifying examination he may be able to attain a high degree of proficiency in his studies. 10. The entire purpose of providing scholarship to the petitioner was to provide financial help for the studies. It is not the case of the respondents that after getting admission she failed or did not attend the class or her conduct was not good. Though in the year 2003, the Rules provide a different criteria, but the students who are getting scholarship prior to the enforcement of the Rules and are dependent only on the scholarship cannot be deprived for the payment of the scholarship, which was already sanctioned and paid long back before the commencement of these Rules. Even Rule 7.1 provides that the scholarship once provided shall continue till the completion of the course. The restriction imposed in this notification will be applicable in respect of those students who got admission after the enforcement of these Rules. But these Rules will not affect entitlement of those students who were getting scholarship prior to enforcement of the Rules. The petitioner who was getting scholarship prior to commencement of those Rules shall be entitled for the scholarship till she completes her course or otherwise becomes disqualified as stated hereinabove. In aforesaid circumstances, the petition is allowed and respondents are directed to continue scholarship to the petitioner till she completes her Engineering Course. The respondents shall be free to withhold/defer or cancel the scholarship in case the petitioner becomes disqualified for the scholarship as per aforesaid criterias, but after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on show cause notice. No order as to costs.