Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 132 (MP)

Rishi Bajpai v. State of M. P.

2017-01-25

H.P.SINGH, RAJENDRA MENON

body2017
ORDER : 1. Heard counsel for the parties on admission. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that after granting scholarship under schemes in questions for a period of five months, scholarship has been stopped. However, from the return filed by the State Government and the circular (Annexure R-1) filed along with the said circular we find that sub Clause 3 of the said circular contemplates the following provision :- "(i).......... (ii).......... (iii) Scholarship should be given to the students only for one year if he/she fails in first or second semester. (iv)....." 3. In the case of the petitioners after granting them scholarship after certain period between three to five months it has been stopped and the scholarship for the entire one year has not been granted. The question has been considered by the coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No.7007/2010 (Chandra Shekhar Banjare and others v. State of M.P. and others) and in the order passed on 21.11.2013 in the aforesaid case, this provision has been interpreted in the following manner :- "A joint reading of both the circulars makes it clear that a student admitted to M.E. course through GATE shall be entitled as an unqualified right to get scholarship for a period of one year if he/she fails in first or second semester. But further entitlement of scholarship for third semester and onwards, the students shall have to pass the semester examination in first division." 4. From the aforesaid principle laid down it is clear that if the students is admitted to an M.E. course through "GATE", he is entitled to receive scholarship for a period of one year - both in the 1st and 2nd Semester. But further entitlement in the 3rd and 4th Semester depends upon his passing the 1st and 2nd Semester in first division. If that is the interpretation given by the Division Bench then merely because in the 1st semester the petitioners have failed their scholarship could not be curtailed. Prima facie, they are entitled to grant of scholarship for the entire year while they were prosecuting the course in the 1st and 2nd Semester. If that is the interpretation given by the Division Bench then merely because in the 1st semester the petitioners have failed their scholarship could not be curtailed. Prima facie, they are entitled to grant of scholarship for the entire year while they were prosecuting the course in the 1st and 2nd Semester. That being so, we find that the Respondent No.4 the Institute in question has not evaluate the claim of the petitioner properly in accordance to the principle laid down in the judgment rendered in the case of Chandra Shekhar Banjare (supra) and various other circulars, particularly a recent circular issued by the All India Council for Technical Education being Annexure R-2 refereed to at Page 7 in the return filed by the Respondent No.5/AICTE, wherein they referred to the recent circular issued by the AICTE. 5. Be that as it may, the fact remains that prima facie, we find that the case of the petitioners for grant of scholarship for the dispute in question has not been evaluated by the Respondent No.4 in the backdrop of the judgment rendered in the case of Chandra Shekhar Banjare (supra) and the circulars applicable in the matter issued by the AICTE and, therefore, it is a fit case where the impugned action should be quashed and the matter remanded back to Respondent No.4 for reconsideration. 6. Accordingly, we allow the petitions in part and remand the matter back to Respondent No.4 with the following directions:- "On the petitioners filing a detailed claim afresh along with relevant circulars and schemes applicable in the matter, Respondent No.4 shall re-examine the case of the petitioners and after taking note of the scheme and the observations made in the case of Chandra Shekar Banjare (supra) decide the claim afresh by a speaking order within a period of 30 days of its presentation." 7. With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of.