JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner, a practising lawyer has laid this writ petition to assail the impugned circular dated 11.04.2014 (Annex. 10), communication dated 07.10.2014 (Annex. 13) and notice dated 10.02.2015 (Annex. 14) and prayed for annulment of impugned circular, communication as well as notice. A further direction is sought by the petitioner to allow him benefit of interest subsidy for the period of moratorium in adherence of the central scheme to provide interest subsidy for the period of moratorium on educational loans availed by the students belonging to weaker sections of society with other ancillary reliefs. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of case are that petitioner for advancement of his academic career to pursue B.A., L.L.B. Course applied for education loan to the respondent-State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, RASMECCC, Jodhpur (for short the 'Bank'). The respondent-Bank after processing the application of the petitioner sanctioned him education loan to the tune of Rs. 3,97,500/- vide letter dated 25.07.2007. The loan was sanctioned for a period of five years i.e. from 2007 to 2012. In terms of sanction letter, the petitioner was required to repay the said loan in equal monthly instalments in 60 months after the date of commencement of repayment. The repayment was to commence one year after the course period of 16 months to be reckoned from 01.08.2007. As such, the petitioner was allowed moratorium period from July 2007 to January 2013 and during the interregnum period, he was not required to pay any sum against the principal loan amount. After completion of moratorium period, the petitioner started paying monthly instalments and by 09.03.2015, a total sum of Rs. 2,59,200/- was paid by him in 18 instalments. In order to show the requisite figures, statement of accounts for the period 11.08.2007 to 09.03.2015 is also placed on record. 3. It is averred by the petitioner in the writ petition that the Union Finance Minister while presenting budget for the year 2014-2015 in his budget speech proposed for providing the subsidy on interest amount of moratorium period for all education loans taken up to 31.03.2009 as outstanding on 31.12.2013. 3. It is averred by the petitioner in the writ petition that the Union Finance Minister while presenting budget for the year 2014-2015 in his budget speech proposed for providing the subsidy on interest amount of moratorium period for all education loans taken up to 31.03.2009 as outstanding on 31.12.2013. Pursuant to the budget speech of the Union Finance Minister, as per the petitioner, Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India issued explanation regarding the proposed central scheme to provide interest subsidy for the period of moratorium on education loans availed by the students belonging to economically weaker sections from the Scheduled Bank advanced under the Education Loan Scheme of Indian Banks' Association to pursue technical/professional education studies in India. In the scheme, it was, inter alia, provided that interest on the education loan during the moratorium period shall be borne by the Government. According to the petitioner, in adherence of the explanation of Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, the respondent-bank issued a circular dated 04.03.2014 stating therein that Central Government has taken liability to i make payment of the interest on education loan up to 31.12.2013 which were sanctioned/availed up to 31.03.2009 and are outstanding on 31.12.2013. Subsequent to that, the third respondent sent a communication to the petitioner that benefit of scheme shall be provided to the loanees who have obtained education loan during 21.05.2001 to 31.03.2009 provided their annual family income is not more than Rs. 4.50 lacs and the petitioner was asked to furnish certificate to that effect. In adherence of the same, the petitioner submitted requisite certificate with the benign hope of getting interest subsidy during the moratorium period. 4. Thereafter, a circular dated 11.04.2014 came into offing at the behest of the Bank for implementation of Interest Subsidy Scheme. Along with circular, Annex.1 was enclosed clarifying certain queries whereas Annex.11 contained examples for providing benefit of the said Scheme. As per the version of the petitioner, it was quite surprising that examples quoted therein nowhere envisage subsidy for the interest during the moratorium period vis-a-vis loanees having regular account and no outstanding interest as on the date. It is also clarified that if the account is Non-Performing Asset (NPA), moratorium period interest and the interest outstanding as on 31.03.2013 is to be computed separately and relief would be provided on the account whichever is lower. 5. It is also clarified that if the account is Non-Performing Asset (NPA), moratorium period interest and the interest outstanding as on 31.03.2013 is to be computed separately and relief would be provided on the account whichever is lower. 5. After submission of application along with income certificate by the petitioner for availing the benefit of Interest Subsidy Scheme, when no communication was received by him, he submitted a representation dated 11.08.2014. The said representation was further followed by a communication dated 26.09.2014 with material particulars about availing of education loan as well as introduction of Central Government Scheme of Interest Subsidy on Education Loan. As per the version of the petitioner, his application was rejected on the ground of not making repayment timely. The communication of the petitioner dated 26.09.2014 is responded by the Bank on 07.10.2014 informing him that his education loan account did not fall within the ambit of norms, the benefit cannot be extended to him. 6. Assailing the said communication, the petitioner has submitted in the writ petition that the same is a vague, cryptic and nonspeaking order which runs contrary to the declarations made by the Union Finance Minister in the Budget Speech. Be that as it may, the Bank declined to convey fresh schedule for instalments to the petitioner in utter disregard to his alleged legitimate expectation. Finally, a notice dated 10.02.2015 was served on the petitioner calling upon him to deposit a sum of Rs. 4,38,140/- with a word of caution that if the outstanding amount is not deposited by him, the same would entail initiation of legal proceedings. While harping on the Central Scheme for Interest Subsidy on Education Loan, the petitioner has questioned the action of the respondent-Bank as wholly arbitrary and illegal. 7. On behalf of the respondent-Bank, reply to the writ petition is submitted refuting all the averments contained in the writ petition. Joining issue with the petitioner on Union Finance Minister's Budget Speech underlying the Central Scheme to provide Interest Subsidy for the period of moratorium on Education Loans availed by the students from economically weaker sections, the respondent-Bank submitted that guidelines for providing relief of Outstanding Interest Component as on 31.12.2013 were issued by the Government of India subject to certain terms and conditions. It is specifically pleaded in the reply by the respondent-Bank that circular was issued by it on 04.03.2014 after receiving such operational guidelines from the Government of India. It is also clarified that guidelines annexed with the circular dated 04.03.2014 (Annex.8) are the guidelines which were received from the Government of India for implementation. Laying emphasis on Para 5 of the Guidelines, it is further submitted by the Bank that in terms of guidelines, the outstanding interest component on those educational loans which were availed up to 31.03.2009 and outstanding as on 31.12.2013 was to be adjusted in terms of Central Scheme for Interest Subsidy, 2014 (for short 'CSIS-2014'). Elaborating the terms of guidelines, the Bank has also submitted that interest accrued up to the date of start of repayment was to be capitalised with the original loan amount for being treated as the part of principal amount and barring that kind of adjustment in the aforesaid principal amount is clearly envisaged therein. With all these pleas, the respondent-Bank has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled for any interest subsidy for the loan availed by him. A further clarification is made in the reply that in spite of intimation, the petitioner has not repaid the instalments as per the loan agreement and, therefore, by treating the loan account as NPA, the Bank was compelled to file civil suit for recovery of the due amount. Stoutly defending the circular (Annex. 10), communication (Annex. 13) and notice (Annex. 14), the respondent-Bank has emphatically denied all the grounds urged by the petitioner in the writ petition. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 9. The entire edifice of the challenge to circular (Annex. 10), communication (Annex. 13) and notice (Annex. 14) has emanated from the Budgetary Speech of the Union Finance Minister. The Union Finance Minister while reiterating the terms of CSIS-14 introduced by his predecessor in respect of education loans disbursed after 01.04.2009 proposed a moratorium period for education loan taken up to 31.03.2009 and outstanding as on 31.12.2013. Precise grievance of the petitioner is that the Bank while issuing circular (Annex. 10) has not incorporated the requisite guidelines for interest subsidy during moratorium period vis-a-vis education loans mutatis mutandis and has altered the same to his detriment. Precise grievance of the petitioner is that the Bank while issuing circular (Annex. 10) has not incorporated the requisite guidelines for interest subsidy during moratorium period vis-a-vis education loans mutatis mutandis and has altered the same to his detriment. In that background, the action of the respondent-Bank is questioned as arbitrary and unreasonable on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In order to appreciate afflictions of the petitioner in right perspective, it is necessary to ascertain the true purport of the word "subsidy" in etymological sense and in legal parlance. 10. "Subsidy" means a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a Government to a private industrial undertaking, a charity organisation, or the like. A Subsidy is usually given to promote commercial enterprise; a subsidy to manufacturers during a war. A subvention is usually a grant to stimulate enterprises connected with science and the arts. 11. In legal parlance, "subsidum" means money contributed by a State Government, Institution or person in behalf of any special object. 12. Therefore, the very object of grant of subsidy suggests in clear and unequivocal terms that it cannot be claimed as a matter of right. An incumbent eligible to avail subsidy is required to fulfil the requisite criteria and parameters set out by the grantee and he cannot stake his claim for subsidy de hors the said scheme. The CSIS - 2014 was an extension of the said Scheme of 2009-2010 so as to include education loans taken up to 31.03.20(8 for allowing interest subsidy during moratorium period. Upon perusal of tin reply of the respondent-Bank, it is crystal clear that circular was issued by the respondent-Bank on 04.03.2014 enclosing the operational guidelines received from the Government of India for its implementation up to 30.06.2014. Para 5 of the Operational Guidelines reads as under:- "5. Benefits Available Under The Present Scheme For those educational loans sanctioned/availed up to 31.03.2009 and outstanding as on 31.12.2013, the interest component as outstanding on 31.12.2013 will be eligible for relief under this Scheme. It means that only the interest component of those education loans which were availed up to 31.03.2009 and are outstanding as on 31.12.2013 shall be adjusted under the Scheme. Principal amount (i.e. original loan amount + interest capitalized at the start of repayment) shall continue to be as it is and no kind of adjustment shall be done against the principal amount. Principal amount (i.e. original loan amount + interest capitalized at the start of repayment) shall continue to be as it is and no kind of adjustment shall be done against the principal amount. For cases which are NPAs & outstanding as on 31.12.2013, the interest during the moratorium period (the capitalized interest) OR the interest outstanding as on 31.12.2013, whichever is less, will be eligible for relief." 13. A bare perusal of the aforementioned para-5 of the Operational Guidelines and on its harmonious construction, there remains no quarrel that its intention is to allow subsidy on the interest component as outstanding on 31.12.2013. The clear stand of the respondent-Bank is that no interest was outstanding on 31.12.2013 and, therefore, the petitioner is not eligible to avail interest subsidy in terms of CSIS-2014. Therefore, in the considered opinion of the Court, it is not possible to infer that the Bank has acted arbitrarily or unreasonably to the petitioner's detriment or has made an attempt to circumscribe or tone down the interest subsidy on education loans during moratorium period floated by the Union Finance Minister in his budget speech. As observed here in above, subsidy is admissible and can be availed by an eligible incumbent in terms of the scheme in vogue and not beyond the scheme, thus, I am unable to subscribe the view of the petitioner that the respondent-Bank has acted de hors the interest subsidy scheme or has issued the circulars (Annex. 8) & (Annex. 10) in defiance of the Budgetary Speech of the Union Finance Minister. This sort of situation obviously negate the allegation of the petitioner that respondent-Bank has acted in an arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory manner. 14. In order to ventilate his grievances, the petitioner has also romped in doctrine of "Legitimate expectation". The doctrine of "Legitimate expectation" is a "latest recruit" to a long list of concepts, fashioned by the courts for review of administrative actions. Under the said doctrine, a person may have reasonable or legitimate expectation of being treated in a certain way by an administrative authority even though he has no right in law to receive the benefit. Legitimate expectation is not a legal right but rather an expectation of a benefit, relief or remedy that may ordinarily flow from promise or established practise. The expectation should be legitimate i.e. reasonable, logical and valid. Legitimate expectation is not a legal right but rather an expectation of a benefit, relief or remedy that may ordinarily flow from promise or established practise. The expectation should be legitimate i.e. reasonable, logical and valid. Any expectation which is based on sporadic or casual or random acts or which is unreasonable, illogical or invalid cannot be a legitimate expectation. In India, it seems that judicial thinking has not as yet crystallised as regards the nature and scope of the doctrine. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the very foundation of the petitioner to invoke doctrine of "Legitimate expectation" is misconception of CSIS-2014 inasmuch as the petitioner has construed the promise or the practise to be followed 5 without examining and analysing its true purport. The Budgetary Speech of the Union Finance Minister is also clear and unequivocal in this behalf. The relevant excerpts from Annex. 5 reads as under:- "....However, I have noticed a sense of discrimination among students who had borrowed before 31.3.2009, struggled to pay interest during the period of study, and continued to service the loans afterwards. I think they deserve some relief. I therefore propose a moratorium period for all education loans taken up to 31.3.2009 and outstanding on 31.12.2013. Government will take over the liability for outstanding interest as on 31.12.2013, but the borrower would have to pay interest for the period after 1.1.2014 " 15. That apart, the Operational Guidelines as mentioned in circular (Annex. 8) and the recitals in the circular (Annex. 10), the clarifications as incorporated in Annexure-II with the circular (Annex. 10) with emphasis on query (c) and its answer, needs emphasis which is reproduced as under:- "c) Assuming that the repayment has commenced from 01.04.2012 (in the above example) and the student is repaying the EMI of Rs. 13628/-, the student would have paid total repayments of Rs. 286188/- (21 EMIs of Rs. 13628/-) till 31.12.2013, as shown under:- Period Outstanding Amount paid in EMIs by borrower (A) Interest Amount(Compounded monthly) (B) Difference adjusted towards Principal (A)-(B) Remaining O/s 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013 772000 163536 88608 74928 697072 01.04.2013 to 31.12.2013 697072 122652 60283 62369 634703 Now, out of Rs. 163536 paid by the borrower in the year 2012-13, Rs. 88608 is adjusted towards the Compound Interest applied in the account. Remaining Rs. 163536 paid by the borrower in the year 2012-13, Rs. 88608 is adjusted towards the Compound Interest applied in the account. Remaining Rs. 74928 is adjusted towards Principal (which contains the Interest Capitalised at the start of repayment period i.e. Rs. 72000). As the difference is greater than the Interest Capitalised, whether it will be eligible for 'relief under the new scheme? As the account is regular, no interest will be outstanding. Hence no relief is envisaged. If the account is NPA, moratorium period interest and Interest outstanding as on 31/12/2013 are to be computed separately; whichever is lower will be the eligible relief. d) Also, in case the 'difference adjusted towards Principal' is less than the Interest capitalised, what interest amount will be eligible for 'relief under the new scheme? If the account is Standard, and if some interest is outstanding as on 31/12/2013,only this portion will be eligible for relief. If the account is NPA, moratorium period interest and Interest outstanding as on 31/12/2013 are to be computed separately; whichever is lower will be the eligible relief." 16. That being the position, invocation of doctrine of ''Legitimate expectation" by the petitioner in the backdrop of facts and circumstances of the instant case cannot be countenanced and the said plea merits rejection. 17. No other point is urged by the petitioner.The upshot of above discussion is that I find no merit in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.Writ Petition Dismissed. *******