Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 233 (ALL)

Mahesh Kumar Mishra v. Zila Adhikari Lucknow

2019-01-30

SANGEETA CHANDRA

body2019
JUDGMENT : Sangeeta Chandra, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Sri Amrendra Nath Tripathi appears for respondent nos.4 and 5 and learned Standing Counsel appears for respondent nos.1 and 2. 2. It is the case of the petitioner that he had applied for M.B.A. course and had appeared in State Entrance Examination (UPSEE-2011) with Roll No.5656091. He was successful and in the counselling that was held on 23.6.2011, he was allotted to Ambalika Institute of Management and Technology, Gram Tikra Maurawan Road, Mohan Lal Gang, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "respondent no.5"). A true copy of his counselling report including fees receipts and confirmation letter of allotment have all been filed as Annexure No.3 to the writ petition. 3. The petitioner deposited the fee in the institute of respondent no.5 thereafter. Since the petitioner belongs to a very poor family, he applied for scholarship and respondent no.2 granted scholarship for the Session 2011-12 and his name was shown at Serial No.251 in the list of students found eligible for such scholarship as uploaded on the internet. A total of Rs.31,660/- was reimbursed as scholarship amount in the petitioner's bank account thereafter. A copy of the scholarship list and the statement of the bank account and passbook of the petitioner, have all been filed as Annexure nos.5 and 6 to the writ petition. 4. After passing the first year, the petitioner also deposited the second year fee i.e. the total of Rs.1,56,515/- before respondent no.5. He applied for scholarship in the second year also and submitted all necessary documents. The name of the petitioner was also shown at Serial No.274 of the list as uploaded on the internet, but the scholarship amount of Rs.89,600/- was not reimbursed/deposited in the bank account of the petitioner. 5. The petitioner completed his M.B.A. course in 2013. The petitioner fell ill thereafter and later on, filed an application under the Right to Information Act and he was informed by the office of the District Social Welfare Officer, the respondent no.2 that he should have been given scholarship as he had earlier been given the said scholarship for the first year and his father's income was shown as Rs.19,200/-, but the respondent nos.4 and 5 showed the name of the petitioner under the Management Quota. The students taking admission under the Management Quota were not eligible for scholarship and therefore, the petitioner was not given scholarship for the year 2012-2013. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it was the responsibility of respondent nos.4 and 5 to have shown the name of the petitioner correctly in the list submitted to the office of respondent no.2. Because of the mistake of respondent nos.4 and 5, the petitioner has been deprived of the scholarship to which, he was legally entitled under the Rules notified on 7.1.2013 called the Uttar Pradesh Saamanya Varg Dashmottar Chhatravritti Yojna Niyamavali, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 2012"). A copy of the Rules of 2012 has been filed as Annexure to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner on 13.3.2015. 7. Learned counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5, on the other hand, has pointed out from the counter affidavit of the respondents that it was the petitioner, who was responsible of filling up the form for applying for scholarship under the Rules of 2012. A copy of the form submitted by the petitioner to the satisfaction for giving scholarship has been filed as Annexure-CA-1 to the counter affidavit, which shows that at Serial No.19, the entry required to be made by the petitioner was whether he had taken admission on a free seat or self financed seat or paid seat. However, the petitioner against the said query, had written only U.P.T.U. and, therefore, the entry being ambiguous, the petitioner's form was sent but it was rejected on the basis of information given in the application form. Since the form of the petitioner was ambiguous, the blame lies with the petitioner for non payment of scholarship. 8. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for respondent nos.1 and 2, has pointed out from his counter affidavit that initially the Rules were notified on 7.1.2013 and as per Rule 11(5) of the said Rules, the eligibility criteria has been fixed for giving such scholarship. It includes those students of even private institutions, who have been given admission on "Free Seats" by state counselling. In this regard, Director, Social Welfare had also issued a letter on 12.7.2013. It includes those students of even private institutions, who have been given admission on "Free Seats" by state counselling. In this regard, Director, Social Welfare had also issued a letter on 12.7.2013. The students whose names appeared in the admission list for government run institutions were automatically given scholarship, but with regard to those private institutions where fee structure had been approved by the State Government, students on "Free Seats" alone could be given reimbursement, if their parents annual income was upto Rs.36000/-. 9. It has further been submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that the fee reimbursement was done to 116 students out of 1602 students, whose parents annual income was Rs.36000/- as per net preference. The petitioner's case falls under the category of Rule 11(5) (c) of the Rules of 2012 as he had taken admission in a private institute, whose fee structure had been approved by the State Government. However, the respondent no.5 had wrongly forwarded the case of the petitioner on a "Paid Seat", although the admission of the petitioner was done through counselling from U.P. Technical University on a "Free Seat". A copy of the letter dated 3.7.2014 issued by the U.P. Technical University in this regard to the petitioner's father has also been annexed as Annexure no.1 to the counter affidavit filed by the State-respondents. It shows that in the institute of respondent nos.4 and 5 (Code no.363) for the academic session 2011-12 for M.B.A. course, a total of 58 students were admitted out of which, six students had taken admission through counselling and nine students had taken admission under the Management Quota. The name of the petitioner is shown as having been mentioned on State Counselling list. 10. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the rejoinder that even the State-respondents have admitted that due to the fault of respondent nos.4 and 5, the name of the petitioner was shown on a Paid Seat and therefore, he has been deprived of his entitlement. He has also submitted in reply to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents no.4 and 5, that the Rules themselves provide that the Management shall be wholly responsible for getting the forms filled up from eligible students, cross checking the same and submitting the correct information to respondent no.2 for reimbursement of fee as scholarship. 11. He has also submitted in reply to the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents no.4 and 5, that the Rules themselves provide that the Management shall be wholly responsible for getting the forms filled up from eligible students, cross checking the same and submitting the correct information to respondent no.2 for reimbursement of fee as scholarship. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the definition of "Free Seat" and "Paid Seat" as given under the Rules, namely, Rules-V, VII and VIII. "Free Seat" has been defined as a seat on which, admission takes place on the basis of merit through a competitive examination held either by the Centre or the State Government or any authorized institute on this behalf through counselling as per the prescribed procedure. On the other hand, "Paid Seat" is defined as a seat on which, admission takes place in a manner, other than the one prescribed for a "Free Seat". 12. It has been further submitted that U.P. Technical University did counselling only for those persons who had appeared in the merit list of competitive examination that was held for admission to such courses as M.B.A. course run by the institute of respondent nos.4 and 5. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Rule 12(3) of the Rules of 2012, wherein it has been provided that the application form submitted by the students for maintenance allowance or fee reimbursement has to be checked by the institution on the basis of documents like income certificate and domicile certificate from the website of Revenue department. All other certificates had to be verified and attested after comparing them from the original certificates by a Committee constituted at the level of the institute itself and the institution was to be wholly responsible for the correctness of information submitted in this regard. 14. The members of the Committee have been mentioned as Director or the Principal of the institution, the senior most teacher of the institution and the senior most reserved category teacher of the institution.? In case there were no reserved category teacher in the institution, then a nominee of the District Inspector of Schools had to attend the Committee's meeting. 15. The members of the Committee have been mentioned as Director or the Principal of the institution, the senior most teacher of the institution and the senior most reserved category teacher of the institution.? In case there were no reserved category teacher in the institution, then a nominee of the District Inspector of Schools had to attend the Committee's meeting. 15. It is only when such Committee recommends the name of a student in the prescribed format and uploads the database on the software provided for the same to the institute, that fee reimbursement can take place. It has also been mentioned under Rule 12(4) that all information stated? on the database has to be verified as correct by the institution itself and the responsibility shall be of the institution for the correctness of database. 16. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further pointed out that Rule 14(1) provides that in case a student is given scholarship/fee reimbursement at the admission stage in a particular course, he shall be given the same till he finishes the course, subject to the condition that the student's character is good and his attendance remains regular. In case of such courses, which run for more than one year, the additional condition is that the student in question should pass the first year and go to the second year. In case the course is for a particular period i.e. two years or three years, fee reimbursement shall be made only for that period of two years or three years. It cannot extend beyond the said period provided for the course in question. 17. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of Rules notified on 7.1.2013 that the petitioner became legally entitled for such fee reimbursement as he had taken admission on a "Free Seat" through Counselling done by U.P. Technical University and his name was included in the list of students for fee reimbursement in the First Year of MBA Course. Even if he had filled up the form wrongly, it was the duty of the Committee constituted for the said purpose in the Institute under the Rules to have taken note of the mistake and given opportunity to the petitioner to correct it or it could have itself corrected the mistake as the petitioner had mentioned in his application form that he had come through counselling from U.P. Technical University. Counselling by U.P. Technical University is done for "Free Seat" and not for Management Quota seats or "Paid Seats", the management itself takes the admission. If a student out of some confusion mentioned U.P.T.U. only against the entry meant for indicating whether the admission was taken on a paid seat or free seat, it was the management's duty to correct such information and then upload it on the database in the software in the prescribed format. It has been stated that the committee constituted for the said purpose could have outrightly rejected the form but it could not have shown the petitioner to have taken admission on a paid seat all by itself. 18. Learned counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5 has argued that it is the clerical staff which does the uploading and clerical staff may not have noticed any discrepancy made by the petitioner in the application form. 19. Having considered the argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel, this Court finds the argument of learned counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5 untenable. If a procedure is prescribed for doing a particular thing in a particular manner, it has to be done in that manner alone or not at all. Law in this regard has been settled since 1936 by the Privy Council decision in Nazir Ahmad vs. King Emperor, (1936) 63 IndApp 372 and it has been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of U.P. vs. Singhara Singh, (1964) AIR SC 358. 20. Law in this regard has been settled since 1936 by the Privy Council decision in Nazir Ahmad vs. King Emperor, (1936) 63 IndApp 372 and it has been reiterated by the Constitution Bench of this Court in State of U.P. vs. Singhara Singh, (1964) AIR SC 358. 20. If the Rules had prescribed a particular manner in which the application form of the students was to be examined and verified from original documents submitted by the students in this regard, and then correct information was to be uploaded by the Institute, it was the duty of the Committee constituted for the purpose under the Rules by Institute itself to have looked into the confusing entry made by the defendant at Serial no.19 of the admission form and it should have verified the information, so provided from its own database, where it was mentioned specifically that the petitioner had taken admission through counselling. 21. This Court has also noticed that in the admission list uploaded on the website, only six students had come through State Counselling on "Free Seats" in the Institution in question. The petitioner's name finds place at Serial no.2 of the list so sent by U.P. Technical University. The respondent nos.4 and 5 had sufficient information in their possession to have corrected the information, if confusing entry was made by the student. 22. This Court, therefore, finds that it is because of the wrongful conduct of respondent nos.4 and 5? that the petitioner has been deprived of the scholarship for the academic session 2012-13 for M.B.A. course to which, he was otherwise legally entitled. 23. The writ petition is allowed against respondent nos.4 and 5. A direction is issued to respondent nos.4 and 5 to reimburse the fee of Rs.89,600/- that was admissible to the petitioner as scholarship along with interest @ 6% per annum. 24. The payment shall be deposited by respondent nos.4 and 5 in the account of the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today.