JUDGMENT : Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J. 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- "(i) That, the annexure P/1 and P/2 may kindly be set aside. (ii) That, the respondents may be directed to deposit the scholarship amount (tuition fee and other mandatory fee) directly in the account of institution rather than students. (iii) That, the respondents may be directed not to give an effect to the modified regulations of the Post Matric Scholarship Policy. (iv) That, the respondents may be directed not to discriminate in the scholarship policy among government and non-government institutions. (v) Any other suitable direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed." 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is running an Engineering College and by impugned circular dated 2/9/2016 the respondents have modified the earlier regulation and now as per the modified provision, it has been ordered that the scholarship of students studying in private institutions would be deposited in the account of the students belonging to backward, Scheduled Tribes as well as scheduled castes. It is submitted that disbursement of scholarship amount directly in the accounts of students is fatal to the objective of the scholarship policy. Earlier the respondents had amended the regulation/executive instructions called as Backward Class Post Matric Scholarship Regulations, 2013 and clause 8.4 was added and as per the amended provisions, the scholarship amount, i.e. tuition fee, compulsory fee & maintenance amount, shall be credited to the accounts of the students. Now by the impugned order it has been held that tuition fee, examination and other mandatory fee would be deposited in the account of Government institutions. It is the case of the petitioner that this has resulted in discrimination without any reasonable nexus amongst the government and non-government institutions. It is submitted that in fact the students are not depositing their tuition fee and are misappropriating the same, as a result, the petitioner is suffering financially, because not only he is under compulsion to run the classes, but the petitioner is also under compulsion to allow such defaulter students to appear in the examination. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted representations for modifying the policy in respect of private institutions, but the respondents are not paying any heed. Accordingly, the petitioner has submitted representations for modifying the policy in respect of private institutions, but the respondents are not paying any heed. It is further submitted that by order dated 5/1/2019 the institutions have been directed to forward the examination form of the students belonging to reserved category irrespective of the fact that whether they have deposited tuition fee or not. It is further submitted that in view of the new policy of disbursement of scholarship directly in the account of students, now most of the students are not depositing the tuition fee and the petitioner has filed a copy of the list of students, Annexure P/8, who according to the petitioner have left the courses and have not deposited the scholarship amount. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that there is no rational behind the discrimination made between the government institutions and the private institutions and thus, it is violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of India. 3. During the course of arguments, it was fairly conceded by the counsel for the petitioner that this situation has arisen because of non-deposit of tuition fee by the students and if the students continue to deposit the tuition fee regularly, then they are not aggrieved by the policy decision of the State Government. In the light of the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner, the counsel for the petitioner was directed to implead all the students, who according to the petitioner have not deposited the tuition fee etc. and have left the courses in midway. However, the counsel for the petitioner continuously submitted that since he has challenged the policy decision of the State, therefore, the students, who have left the courses without depositing the tuition fee, are not the necessary party and the dispute involved in the present case can be adjudicated without hearing the students. 4. Per contra, it was submitted by the counsel for the respondents that various complaints were made against various private institutions that without admitting the students, they were submitting forged list of students and were withdrawing the scholarship and accordingly, it was decided that the scholarship shall be deposited directly in the accounts of the students. 4. Per contra, it was submitted by the counsel for the respondents that various complaints were made against various private institutions that without admitting the students, they were submitting forged list of students and were withdrawing the scholarship and accordingly, it was decided that the scholarship shall be deposited directly in the accounts of the students. So far as the distinction made by the Government in the government and private institutions is concerned, it is submitted that there is a nexus with the object sought to be achieved by making such distinction. It is submitted that in the case of government institutions, there is no possibility of misappropriation of scholarship. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 6. Before adverting to the question as to whether there is a reasonable nexus with the object sought to be achieved or not, it is necessary to find out as to whether the students against whom the petitioner has levelled allegations are the necessary parties or not. 7. The counsel for the petitioner had fairly conceded that in case if the students deposit their tuition fee regularly without fail, then the petitioner has no objection even to the amended policy of the government. It is fairly conceded that the dispute has arisen only because of non-deposit of tuition fee by the students, as a result, most of the seats allotted to the students belonging to Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and OBC candidates were going vacant for all practical purposes because either the students were attending the classes without depositing the tuition fee or they had left the courses in midway without depositing the tuition fee. Thus, the basic foundation for filing this petition is non-deposit of tuition fee by the students. The petitioner by filing list of students as Annexure P/8, has levelled allegations against them that they have not deposited their tuition fee and have left the courses in midway. It is a well established principle of law that no one should be condemned unheard. The petitioner by filing list of students as Annexure P/8, has levelled allegations against them that they have not deposited their tuition fee and have left the courses in midway. It is a well established principle of law that no one should be condemned unheard. Accordingly, the counsel for the petitioner was once again suggested that in case if he wants to make allegations against the students who are named in the list filed as Annexure P/8, then they are necessary parties and they should be impleaded, but the counsel for the petitioner continuously resisted the opportunity given by the Court by saying that he would try to develop his arguments without making any allegation against the students. Thereafter, the counsel for the petitioner was permitted to argue the matter without making any allegation against any of the students. 8. Shri Prashant Sharma, counsel for the petitioner thereafter started his arguments by saying that by depositing the scholarship directly in the accounts of the students, the State Government has in fact permitted pilferage of the public exchequer by giving liberty to the students not to deposit the tuition fee. 9. Therefore, whenever any argument on the question of validity of the policy was started, it was argued that only because of non-deposit of tuition fee by the students, the petitioner is suffering adversely. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the students against whom the allegations have been levelled by filing a list as Annexure P/8 are the necessary parties because whether they have deposited the tuition fee or not and under what circumstances they were forced to leave the courses are certain aspects which cannot be decided without giving an opportunity of hearing to them. 10. "Necessary party" has been considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Swapna Mohanty Vs. State of Odisha and others reported in (2018) 17 SCC 621 and it has been held as under:- "12. ............. A person whose presence before a forum may be necessary in order to enable it effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the dispute is a necessary party. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively. ............. A person whose presence before a forum may be necessary in order to enable it effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the dispute is a necessary party. A necessary party is one without whom no order can be made effectively. A proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made, but whose presence is necessary for complete and final decision on the question involved in the proceedings. [See: Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Board of Revenue [Udit Narain Singh Malpaharia v. Board of Revenue, AIR 1963 SC 786 ]." The Supreme Court in the case of State of Assam Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2010) 10 SCC 408 has held as under:- "16. We respectfully agree with the observations made by this Court in Udit Narain case [ AIR 1963 SC 786 ] and adopt the same. We may add that the law is now well settled that a necessary party is one without whom, no order can be made effectively and a proper party is one in whose absence an effective order can be made but whose presence is necessary for a complete and final decision of the question involved in the proceeding." 11. In the present case, this Court had repeatedly pointed out that the students are the necessary party and they should be impleaded, but every time the counsel for the petitioner refused to implead them as respondents by saying that they are not the necessary party. Thus, this Court had given number of opportunities to the petitioner to implead the students as respondents, but the said opportunity was not availed by the counsel for the petitioner and every time it was emphatically submitted that they are not the necessary parties. Under these circumstances, the consequences of non-joinder of necessary party would certainly follow. The Supreme Court in the case of Church of Christ Charitable Trust and Educational Charitable Society Represented by its Chairman Vs. Ponniamman Educational Trust Represented by its Chairperson/Managing Trustee reported in (2012) 8 SCC 706 has held as under:- "26. On the other hand, when the plaintiff itself persists in not impleading a necessary party in spite of objection, the consequences of non-joinder may follow. Ponniamman Educational Trust Represented by its Chairperson/Managing Trustee reported in (2012) 8 SCC 706 has held as under:- "26. On the other hand, when the plaintiff itself persists in not impleading a necessary party in spite of objection, the consequences of non-joinder may follow. However, the said objection should be taken in the trial court itself so that the plaintiff may have an opportunity to rectify the defect. The said plea cannot be raised in this Court for the first time. This position has been reiterated in State of U.P. v. Ram Swarup Saroj [ (2000) 3 SCC 699 ]. We hold that a plea as to the non-joinder of the party cannot be raised for the first time before this Court if the same was not raised before the trial court and has not resulted in failure of justice. In the case of non-joinder, if the objection is raised for the first time before this Court, the Court can always implead the party on the application wherever necessary. However, in the case on hand, for the disposal of application filed for rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11, the second defendant is not a necessary party, hence he need not be impleaded. Accordingly, we reject the said objection of the respondent herein." 12. It is next contended by the counsel for the petitioner that since the petitioner has not sought any relief against the students whose names are mentioned in Annexure P/8 by alleging that they have not deposited the tuition fee, therefore, they are not the necessary parties. 13. Considered the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner. 14. This Court has already considered the basic foundation of the submission of the petitioner that the petitioner is suffering adversely only because of non-deposit of tuition fee by the students. Since a serious allegation is being made by the petitioner against the students, therefore, whether any relief has been sought against them or not, but still they are required to be heard because if the contention made by the petitioner is accepted, then this Court would be condemning the students by holding that they have not deposited the tuition fee. It is well established principle of law that no one should be condemned unheard unless and until a reasonable opportunity to defend himself or represent his cause is given. It is well established principle of law that no one should be condemned unheard unless and until a reasonable opportunity to defend himself or represent his cause is given. The Supreme Court in the case of Indu Bhushan Dwivedi Vs. State of Jharkhand and another reported in (2010) 11 SCC 278 has held as under:- "21. ............ The proposition laid down in the abovenoted judgment represents one of the basic canons of justice that no one can be condemned unheard and no order prejudicially affecting any person can be passed by a public authority without affording him reasonable opportunity to defend himself or represent his cause." 15. Thus, viewed from every angle, it is held that the students against whom the petitioner is making allegations of non-deposit of tuition fee are the necessary parties and as the petitioner has refused to implead them in spite of multiple suggestions given by this Court during the course of arguments, therefore, this Court is left with no other option but to dismiss this petition on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party. 16. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.