JUDGMENT Dinesh Maheshwari, J. By way of these appeals, the appellants State of U.P. and its officers in the Social Welfare Department seek essentially to question the order dated 03.07.2014 as passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in a batch of petitions led by Writ Petition No. 632 (M/S) of 2014. In one of the appeals, the order impugned has been passed following the aforesaid order dated 03.07.2014. By the orders impugned, the learned Single Judge has accepted the different writ petitions filed either by the concerned institutions or by the concerned students on their grievance against denial of the benefit of a Social Welfare Scheme, being U.P. Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes Post Matric Scholarship Scheme, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme/the Scheme of 2012'). The learned Single Judge has found the denial of benefit to the petitioner institutions/ candidates only on the ground of some delay in submission or uploading of the requisite application/information to be unjustified; and has directed the present appellants to accept the application of the petitioners within a week from the date of order. 2. Leading Special Appeal No. 581 of 2014 is reportedly time barred by 1 month and 23 days and notice on the application seeking condonation for delay has been issued. The other appeals are time barred by about 6 months and have come up for the first time for consideration. 3. In the totality of the circumstances, we have considered the appeals on merits while condoning the delay in filing; and these appeals are taken up for disposal by this common order. 4. Put in brief, the relevant background aspects of the matter are that the State Government had in the past provided for certain arrangements whereby, the students of Scheduled Caste category and admitted to the referred institutions were not to be asked to deposit the fees; and the amount towards their fees was paid to the institutions by the Social Welfare Department. Ultimately, by the notification dated 26.09.2012, the State Government notified the Scheme of 2012 in which it was provided that the necessary amount of fees, of admission, enrollment, examination etc., in relation to the eligible candidates would be reimbursed by the State Government directly in the bank accounts of the students who, in turn, shall be paying the same to their respective educational institutions. Under this Scheme of 2012, the State Government proceeded to issue a time table for submission of the applications by the students concerned and for their further processing, which could be reproduced for ready reference as under: ---Hindi--- Though the aforesaid time table was notified on 30.08.2013 and, as given out before us during the course of submissions, the date of commencement of Scheme was 01.10.2013 but then, an amendment in the Scheme was brought about by a notification dated 02.12.2013. In the procedure for submission and processing of the applications as provided in clause 12 of the Scheme of 2012 as originally framed, the candidate was to submit the application on the prescribed form to the institution concerned but in the amended Scheme, the candidate was to submit online application and then, to submit its printout with necessary documents to the institution concerned, who was then to get the same processed by its committee and then to certify the same online. It appears that this alteration of the procedure for submission of applications led to serious practical difficulties for the candidates and the institutions. 6. It had been the case of the petitioners before the writ Court that on account of failure of server, several of applications could not be submitted/forwarded online. Such assertions were refuted by the present appellants with the submission that even on the last date, about 2 lacs forms were submitted and hence, the suggestion about failure of server was not correct. It was submitted that since a particular time schedule had been prescribed for submission of online forms, the Government cannot be saddled with liability in relation to the forms not submitted within the stipulated time. It appears that before the writ Court, a suggestion was made by the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 632 (M/S) of 2014 with a newspaper report that the last date for submission of forms was extended until 31.01.2014. Such an assertion was not specifically refuted on behalf of the present appellants by way of the counter affidavit. 7. The learned Single Judge took note of the submissions of the parties and the objectives of the Scheme; and also considered the adverse effect on the eligible candidates of Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe category where they might be forced to leave the studies midway, if denied the benefit of Scheme. 7. The learned Single Judge took note of the submissions of the parties and the objectives of the Scheme; and also considered the adverse effect on the eligible candidates of Schedule Caste and Scheduled Tribe category where they might be forced to leave the studies midway, if denied the benefit of Scheme. The learned Single Judge found it justified to take a view that would promote and advance the purpose of the beneficial Scheme. The learned Single Judge, therefore, allowed the writ petitions, while directing the appellants to accept the applications of the petitioners within a week, while further providing that no further extension of time would be granted. The impugned order dated 03.07.2014, in its entirety, could be taken note of as under: "Since the above writ petitions arise out of a common cause of action, they are being decided by a common order. Writ petitions have been filed seeking direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to permit the submissions of students belonging to scheduled castes. From the pleadings, it appears that in order to encourage the education amongst students, a scheme was launched and ultimately State Government made rules in year 2012 which provided that at the time of admission, no fee will be charged from the students belonging to scheduled castes and thereafter the entire fee will be transferred to the bank accounts of students who, in turn, will pay to Institute. A Schedule was drawn to submit forms. Under the order of State Government dated 17.9.2013, provision for applying on-line forms was prescribed. Last date for submitting the applications was 31st December, 2013. It is also provided in the Scheme that this facility will be given for entire course i.e. if course is for 3 years, then for entire period students will be entitled to get this benefit. Under the Schedule, reimbursement of fee was to be made by 15th March, 2014. It appears that some of the students could not apply by 31st December, 2013 for the reason of failure of server. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that on account of failure of server, delay was caused in submitting the on-line forms. Sri Sameer Kalia, learned State Counsel, submits that allegation of failure of server is not true as on the relevant date more than 2 lacs forms were submitted. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioners that on account of failure of server, delay was caused in submitting the on-line forms. Sri Sameer Kalia, learned State Counsel, submits that allegation of failure of server is not true as on the relevant date more than 2 lacs forms were submitted. Further submission of Sri Kalia is that since Schedule has prescribed to submit on-line forms within three months, delay in submitting the forms by students cannot saddle the liability with State Government. Once this period has also been extended for submitting the forms by Institutes till 31st January, 2014. Power to extend the period was given to District Magistrates in some cases. Thereafter matter was referable to the Committee. Petition have been filed in year 2014, some even in the month of January, 2014. It is culled out from the record that information with regard to defect in Internet server was given on 31st December, 2013 itself. Representation, e-mails were sent, objections were also filed in the month of January, 2014 itself. For the failure of server, students cannot be faulted. Reason for not submitting the forms was given failure of server. It is ultimately the students who will suffer. It would not be proper to ask the students to go out of the study mid way. Submission of learned counsel for petitioners appears well founded because in remote area of villages, power supply is not proper, everyone is not well-versed in operating the computer non-availability and and failure of server may be one of just reasons for submitting the forms. The argument that on the last day i.e. 31.12.2013 lacs of forms were accepted supports petitioners' submission, as it was bound to be overloaded. Students had a right to submit forms till last date as such submission of learned State Counsel that students should have applied earlier has no force. Education has to be principal concern of the State. Scheme aims at empowerment of scheduled castes and other specified students. Thus a view that promotes and advances the purpose of beneficial scheme has to be taken. In these circumstances, in order to give effect to the Scheme launched by the Government, I direct the respondents to accept the application of the petitioners within a week from today. It is further clarified that no further extension will be granted. Thus a view that promotes and advances the purpose of beneficial scheme has to be taken. In these circumstances, in order to give effect to the Scheme launched by the Government, I direct the respondents to accept the application of the petitioners within a week from today. It is further clarified that no further extension will be granted. If the applications are submitted within the stipulated period, same will be entertained and processed by the authorities in accordance with law. Writ petitions are disposed of accordingly." 8. Seeking to challenge the order so passed by the learned Single Judge, the learned Standing Counsel has strenuously argued that the learned Single Judge has viewed the case from an altogether wrong angle and has failed to appreciate that the time frame as provided in the Scheme in question was required to be adhered to, as the Scheme was a budget specific scheme and could not have been kept open for an indefinite period. The learned counsel submitted that as per the Scheme, all the liabilities in relation to each financial year are to come to an end at the end of such financial year and are not to be carried forward and thus, no fund is available with the State Government to be utilised for the session 2013-14; and allowing of the writ petitions in the month of July, 2014 results in such directions which are not in conformity with the Scheme of 2012. 9. Having heard the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellants and having perused the material placed on record, we are clearly of the view that the orders passed by the learned Single Judge remain justified and there appears no reason to consider interference in these intra court appeals. 10. A look at the Scheme as framed and employed by the Government leaves nothing to doubt that it is a beneficial measure by the Government for the help and support of the weaker sections. Looking to its very objectives, the time table providing for processing of the applications cannot be read to be that of a rigid and inflexible schedule with no scope for condonation of delay or enlargement of time on cogent and sufficient reasons. 11. Looking to its very objectives, the time table providing for processing of the applications cannot be read to be that of a rigid and inflexible schedule with no scope for condonation of delay or enlargement of time on cogent and sufficient reasons. 11. Moreover, it is noticed that even though the time table was provided from 30.08.2013 and the Scheme allegedly commenced from 01.10.2013, the State Government chose to carry out amendment in the procedure only by way of notification dated 02.12.2013. Before this date of 02.12.2013, obviously, several of the candidates must have submitted regular applications to the institutions offline, as there was no process of submission of online applications by the candidates. Alteration of the methodology only on 02.12.2013 without reasonable enlargement of time was likely to result in rather uncertainty and prejudice to the bonafide candidates. 12. It has been alleged that as on the last date, about 2 lacs applications were received online. In the given scenario, the suggestion of the institutions and the candidates that there was a server failure could not have been ignored as an altogether fanciful suggestion. Then, it has also appeared on the record that the last date for submission of the applications was extended to 31.01.2014. This assertion has not been refuted by the appellants by specific affidavit. Some of the petitions were filed in the month of January, 2014 as noticed by the learned Single Judge. 13. In the given set of facts and looking to the purpose of the Scheme, the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted in taking a view befitting the nature of the beneficial Scheme. 14. So far as the suggestion that it remains a budget specific scheme and liabilities of one financial year are not carried forward is concerned, we are clearly of the view that once the State Government has declared such nature Scheme, it cannot be allowed to suggest any want of budget or finances to deprive the bonafide eligible candidates of their legitimate expectations. Noteworthy it is that under the Scheme, the eligible candidates are the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who are permanent or original residents of the State of U.P. More significantly, under the Scheme, an eligible candidate is provided financial support for entire of his course of study. Noteworthy it is that under the Scheme, the eligible candidates are the persons belonging to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes who are permanent or original residents of the State of U.P. More significantly, under the Scheme, an eligible candidate is provided financial support for entire of his course of study. In other words, the support under the Scheme is not limited to one particular financial year only but is of recurring nature during the course of studies of the candidate concerned. The learned counsel for the appellants has repeatedly referred to the expression "limited financial resources" as occurring in clause 11 (iv) of the Scheme. We are unable to appreciate as to how such an expression could result in denial of the financial support to an eligible candidate only for some delay in submission of online application form. Looking to the very nature and purpose of the Scheme, the time limit as provided in the schedule of procedure for submission and dealing with the applications cannot be said to be that of such an inflexible nature that it may not admit even of reasonable relaxation in desirable cases. 15. We may observe that genuineness of the claim as made by the petitioner institutions or the petitioner candidates had not been the question raised before the learned Single Judge. In the given set of facts and circumstances, it appears just and appropriate to endorse the view taken by the learned Single Judge with necessary observations which permits the appellants to process the applications in accordance with law and to carry out necessary scrutiny as regards bonafide and eligibility of the institutions and candidates concerned. 16. Accordingly and in view of the above, these appeals are dismissed and the order as passed by the learned Single Judge is affirmed. However, in the interest of justice, we do make it clear that dismissal of these appeals shall have the result of approval of the directions of the learned Single Judge for acceptance of the applications within time granted and with the qualification that no further enlargement of time would be granted. However, in the interest of justice, we do make it clear that dismissal of these appeals shall have the result of approval of the directions of the learned Single Judge for acceptance of the applications within time granted and with the qualification that no further enlargement of time would be granted. Further in the interest of justice, it is provided that if the applications have been submitted within the stipulated time, the same would be entertained and processed in accordance with law and in such processing, it would, of course, be open for the appellants to carry out scrutiny, if considered necessary, as regards bona fide and eligibility of the institution and of the candidate concerned; but the entire process, including actual payment in desirable cases, shall be completed by the appellants expeditiously, and in any case within 60 days from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.