ORDER The first petitioner completed post graduation in Hindi and the second petitioner, post graduation in History. Both of them are visually handicapped. The first petitioner completed M.Phil course in the University of Hyderabad in the year 1997 and thereafter was admitted as a Research Scholar. The second petitioner joined M.Phil course in the History in the year 1999. Both of them applied to the second respondent and the University Grants Commission -the first respondent for grant of Junior Research Fellowship (for short "JRF"), which results in extension of financial aid to complete the Ph.D and M. Phil as the case may be. The second respondent forwarded applications to the first respondent. 2. Through their letter dated 25.4.1997, the first respondent informed the second respondent that no candidate would be eligible for award of Junior Research Fellowship unless he has cleared the National Evaluation Test (for short "NET") conducted by it. Through another communication, dated 6.12.1999, the first respondent informed the second respondent that there is no provision to extend financial benefit to the petitioners since they have not cleared the NET. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the rejection of their claim by the respondents. It is stated that the first respondent itself exempted the visually handicapped persons from such requirement through their memo, issued in May, 1987. They also state that as recently as in the year 1992 the second respondent extended the benefit of J.R.F to one Mr.G.Anil Kumar, a visually handicapped candidate. Reference is made to the letter of May, 1987 issued by the first respondent. 3. The first respondent filed a detailed counter affidavit. It is stated that though exemption was granted from appearing in NET in favour of visually handicapped candidates for grant of J.R.F., the same was withdrawn in the year 1988 through proceedings dated 14/15.7.1988. It is also pleaded that the petitioners cannot claim the benefit of JRF or exemption from appearing N.E.T as a matter of right. Relevant documents are also enclosed. 4. It is also pleaded that the petitioners cannot claim the benefit of JRF or exemption from appearing N.E.T as a matter of right. Relevant documents are also enclosed. 4. Sri K.Balagopal, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the first respondent recognized the necessity of providing benefits to the physically handicapped, particularly, visually handicapped candidates and exempted them from appearing the NET, in the context of extending J.R.F. He contends that exemption was not withdrawn at any point of time and on the other hand, an additional obligation was created on the first respondent by the Parliament by enacting "The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995" (for short 'the Act'). Learned counsel further submits that Clause (d) of Section 30 of the Act mandates that the concerned agency shall grant scholarships to students with disabilities and despite the same, the respondents have not extended the benefit. He further submits that the letter dated 14/15.7.1988 apart from not taking away the benefit, in fact, reiterates exemption in favour of the visually handicapped candidates. 5. Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned counsel for the first respondent submits that no citizen can claim exemption from an academic requirement as a matter of right. He contends that though the visually handicapped candidates were granted exemption in the year 1987, the same was withdrawn in the next year after ascertaining the views of financial agencies. Learned counsel submits that the first respondent has provided for several facilities and benefits especially and exclusively for visually handicapped candidates as is evident from the letter dated 25.4.1997. 6. The Union and the State Governments have been extending benefits and reliefs of various categories, in favour of physically handicapped candidates, particularly visually handicapped to enable them to study various courses. Braille script is introduced and necessary financial as well as physical assistance is extended to them. By overcoming several odds, the petitioners have pursued their studies up to the post graduation and thereafter have taken up research in their respective specializations. 7. The first respondent recognized provision of special benefit for visually handicapped candidates. It has provided for 1 % reservation for such candidates in fellowships and had exempted them from appearing NET. By overcoming several odds, the petitioners have pursued their studies up to the post graduation and thereafter have taken up research in their respective specializations. 7. The first respondent recognized provision of special benefit for visually handicapped candidates. It has provided for 1 % reservation for such candidates in fellowships and had exempted them from appearing NET. The relevant paragraph of the memo issued in May, 1987 reads as under: "I am directed to invite your attention to this office circular letter numbers F.100-1/8 D (RF/Review) dated the 28 Jan., 1981 and 28 September, 1984 respectively (copies enclosed for reference) and to say that it was indicated to the Universities inter alia that they may award fellowships to blind and physically handicapped students to the extent of 1 % of the fellowships allocated to the Universities or at least one per year. If they find any difficulty in meeting this requirement, in genuine cases the UGC may provide extra fellowships to this extent. For the purpose of identifying persons under the category of blind and physically handicapped the Commission was of the view that the blind, deaf and mute persons could be considered. Further, the Commission exempted the visually handicapped students from appearing in the National Level Test being conducted by the Commission for the award of J.R.Fs." 8. The benefit under this memo is extended to number of visually handicapped candidates and they were granted research fellowship without insisting for appearing in the NET. The fact that such benefit was extended even in the year 1992 is evident from letter, dated 17.6.1992 issued by the second respondent in favour of one Mr.Anil Kumar. He too is a visually handicapped candidate, and on the basis of the letter referred to above, he was granted the scholarship at the rate of Rs.1800/- per month. The petitioners state that other candidates were also extended such benefit. 9. When the application made by the petitioners was forwarded to the first respondent, a reply was given on 25.4.1997 and the same reads as under: "F-17 -9/83 (SA-I) University Grants Commission Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi-11 0 002. 25 April.1997 To: Dy.Registrar, (FS), University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad-500046 (A.P.) Sub: Continuation of exemption to visually handicapped students for appearing at UGC-JRF test 1 % quota in fellowship to physically handicapped students clarification. 25 April.1997 To: Dy.Registrar, (FS), University of Hyderabad, Hyderabad-500046 (A.P.) Sub: Continuation of exemption to visually handicapped students for appearing at UGC-JRF test 1 % quota in fellowship to physically handicapped students clarification. Sir, With reference to your letter NO.UH/ FS/UGC.F/97/1224 dated 22.03.1997 on the above subject, I am directed to inform you as under: Many a visually handicapped candidates take the N.E.T examination of the UGC. They are exempted from the payment of examination fee. The test centers provide them the facility of a Reader who are also paid by the test centers. Wherever questions involve graphs or visuals, alternative questions are provided for the blind candidates. Extra time of half hour is being given for answering the paper-I. Paper-II or Paper-III. Since 1989 the Net exam is meant for two purposes (1) Award of J.R.F. and (11) eligibility for lectureship. No one can become a lecturer unless he passes the N.E.T. exam. The J.R.F. is now given by the UGC on the result of NET only. Yours faithfully, Sd/ (M.N.Gupta) Under Secretary" 10. There is no reference either to the letter through which the exemption was granted or to the one through which the exemption was said to have been withdrawn. General opinion was expressed. This hardly can be said to be a genuine consideration of the application of the petitioners. 11. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, reference is made to letter dated 14/15-7-1988 as the one, through which the exemption in favour of visually handicapped candidates from appearing N.E.T was withdrawn. If the same is true, this court would have virtually left the matter at that. The reason is that interference with policy decisions is a rare phenomenon. However, a perusal of the letter discloses that the benefit extended to visually handicapped candidates was not withdrawn at all. On the other hand, it indirectly reiterates the existence of such benefit. The basic purpose of the letter of 14/15-7.1988 is to revise the emoluments with effect from 1.4.1987. The letter deals with the following four categories of research scholars namely 1, 2, 3 and 4. 1.JRFs including those under DRS and Major Reassrach Science, Humanities including Social Sciences. Existing Value Revised Value Rs.800/-p.m. in the first & second years. Rs.1800 For the first & second years Rs.950/-p.m. subsequent years. Rs.2100 for subsequent years. 2. The letter deals with the following four categories of research scholars namely 1, 2, 3 and 4. 1.JRFs including those under DRS and Major Reassrach Science, Humanities including Social Sciences. Existing Value Revised Value Rs.800/-p.m. in the first & second years. Rs.1800 For the first & second years Rs.950/-p.m. subsequent years. Rs.2100 for subsequent years. 2. JRFs (SC/ST Categories) * Existing Value Revised Value Rs.800/-p.m. in the first Rs.1800 for the first & second yeas & second years. Rs.950/- p.m. for subsequent years. Rs.2100 for subsequent years. 3. JRFs (foreign nationals) from developing countries* Existing Value Rs.1000/-p.m. in the first two years Rs.1800 for the first & second years RS.1200/- p.m. for subsequent years. Rs.2100 for subsequent years 4. JRF (for the blind Scholars) Existing Value Rs.1000/-p.m. in the first two years. Rs.1800 for the first & second years Rs.1200/- p.m. for subsequent years. Rs.2100 for subsequent years" 12. The emoluments that were in force at that point of time for categories 1 and 2 were Rs.800 per month for first and second years and Rs.950/-per month for subsequent years. This was revised to Rs.1800/- and Rs.2,100/- respectively. For categories 3 and 4, the emoluments were Rs.1000/- for first two years and Rs.1200/- for subsequent years. These in turn were revised to 1800/and 2100/-respectively. Same revision was effected to these categories also. At the end of the letter, the following paragraph is added: In future no Junior Research Fellowship will be awarded to any person under category I above who has not qualified in one of the above mentioned National Level Tests or its equivalent tests accepted by the Commission. Testing mechanism is being worked out for future selection of J.R.Fs under categories 2, 3 & 4 and will be announced separately." 13. A perusal of this discloses that qualification in N.E.T was made compulsory only for the first category of research scholars. In other words, rest of the three categories were exempted from N.E.T or at least it is not made compulsory for them. Further, proceedings issued for the purpose of discontinuing an incentive or benefit for handicapped candidates are required to be very specific, clear and unambiguous. The letter of May, 1987 was clear in its purport as to the extension of benefit of exemption. Further, proceedings issued for the purpose of discontinuing an incentive or benefit for handicapped candidates are required to be very specific, clear and unambiguous. The letter of May, 1987 was clear in its purport as to the extension of benefit of exemption. In the letter dated 14/15-7-1988, no reference is made to the one of May,1987 nor any mention is made for discontinuing the benefit in favour of visually handicapped candidates. Therefore, the whole basis pleaded by the respondents to deny the J.R.F ceases to exist. 14. Further, Parliament, as recently as or the year 1995 felt that in addition to the facilities that are extended to the physically handicapped candidates, some more are to be provided. When such is the extent of social obligation felt by the State, denial of benefit, which is already in existence, cannot be countenanced in law. 15. The petitioners are said to have completed Ph.D and M.Phil courses respectively. However, they have incurred expenditure from their own limited resources. The State cannot avoid its social obligations towards them. Their cases have to be extended the benefit, which they were entitled to, at the relevant point of time. Such a step would not be a favour to anyone. On the other hand, it would only discharge the social and statutory obligations. 16. Hence, the writ petition is allowed and the second respondent is directed to forward immediately the claims of the petitioners with reference to the dates of their admission into their respective courses as well as their eligibility by treating that the exemption granted under letter of May, 1987 was available to them. On receipt of such proposals from the second respondent, the first respondent shall pass appropriate orders within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the same. There shall be no order as to costs.