JUDGMENT : Dinesh Mehta, J. 1. Instant case is an egregious example of typical mindset of the executives or the State officials, who project and propagate the benefits being offered to the public from one hand and use their pen in the other hand to ensure that those benefits do not reach them. 2. This Court is constrained to observe so, having confronted with the startling facts of this case, wherein a bright student having completed his graduation - B.A. LLB (Hons.) from National Law School, Bangalore went to Cambridge (U.K.) for his post graduation and now he has to approach this Court to prove his point, rather than to vindicate his stand. 3. Having vied for admission in Post Graduation Course in the prestigious Cambridge University, UK, the petitioner was fortunate to get admission. It may not be out of place to mention that considering his merit, the Cambridge University exempted his tuition fee and accordingly, he was supposed to bear other expenses only and not the tuition fee. 4. The petitioner received offer letter for admission from Cambridge University, U.K. on 19.08.2021 and went to UK on 22.09.2021, whereafter his course commenced on 01.10.2021. 5. In the meantime, the petitioner came to know that the State of Rajasthan has promulgated a scheme known as Rajiv Gandhi Scholarship for Academic Excellence (hereinafter referred to as ‘RGS Scheme’), under which, the meritorious students have been offered scholarship for higher education abroad. 6. The petitioner applied for scholarship under the RGS Scheme on 03.11.2021 claiming a sum of Rs. 12,68,267/-. 7. Processing petitioner’s application on 19.04.2022, the State disbursed a sum of Rs.64,232/- in petitioner’s account by way of NEFT, while he was studying in Cambridge University. 8. The petitioner completed his post graduation course on 28.06.2022 and came back to India and started pursuing his career as a lawyer in New Delhi. 9. After returning from U.K., the petitioner contacted and wrote to the respondents to make payment of the balance amount out of his claim of Rs.12,68,267/-. A series of letter and e-mails were exchanged between the petitioner and the Officers of the State and finally vide communication dated 27.02.2023, Joint Director (Academic) of the Commissionerate, College Education informed the petitioner that he was entitled only for tuition fee as per his family income and thus, nothing remained to be paid. A series of letter and e-mails were exchanged between the petitioner and the Officers of the State and finally vide communication dated 27.02.2023, Joint Director (Academic) of the Commissionerate, College Education informed the petitioner that he was entitled only for tuition fee as per his family income and thus, nothing remained to be paid. Resultantly, petitioner’s claim of scholarship of Rs.12,68,267/- stood rejected. 10. Mr. Deepak Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have proceeded arbitrarily and as against petitioner’s claim of Rs.12,68,267/-, they have paid a paltry sum of Rs.64,232/-, on the pretext that he is entitled for tuition fee only and not for other claims. 11. Learned counsel argued that so far as tuition fee is concerned, the Cambridge University itself had granted scholarship and the petitioner had applied under the Scheme to get other amount of his expenses relating to study abroad. He added that while applying under the RGS Scheme, every fact was made known to the respondents and the amount of tuition fee was not even claimed. He clarified that the entire claim of the petitioner was for amount other than the tuition fee, which were admissible in the Scheme, and for such purpose, he navigated the Court through the Scheme and related documents on record. 12. Learned counsel contended that going by the RGS Scheme notified on 05.10.2021, a student was eligible not only for tuition fee but also for other amounts such as annual maintenance allowance; annual contingency and equipment allowance; visa fees; tuition fee; medical insurance premium; cost of air passage, revision of rates, etc. 13. Mr. Vyas submitted that as per the reply, the respondents have confined petitioner’s claim or rejected his claim for other amounts, citing that – permissible amount being a sum of Rs.64,232/- has been paid. He submitted that the same has been done in view of the purported amendment to the Scheme brought by the State vide order dated 15.06.2022 (English version, whereof came to be issued on 15.07.2022). 14. He argued with vehemence that the purported amendment brought into force on 15.06.2022 cannot be used as a tool to deny petitioner’s rightful claim and that his entitlement should be determined on the basis of RGS Scheme, which was prevailing on the date when the petitioner had applied i.e. on 03.11.2021. 15. Mr. Manish Patel, learned Additional Advocate General and his associate Mr. 15. Mr. Manish Patel, learned Additional Advocate General and his associate Mr. Yogesh Sharma per-contra argued that the petitioner has no case worth interference, firstly, by contending that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches and secondly, because petitioner’s rights are liable to be adjudicated on the basis of policy as existed on 30.09.2022 – when the confirmation letter came to be issued, by which time the Scheme had been amended. 16. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 17. Contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the writ petition suffers from delay appears to have been canvassed in order to cover up the illegality or in order to obviate attention of this Court from their arbitrariness. Going by the facts, it is clear that the petitioner completed his post graduation in June, 2022 and his claim came to be rejected on 27.02.2023. The instant writ petition has been filed on 01.04.2024, maybe, after about a year, but the same cannot be said to be an inordinate delay, fatal to petitioner’s rights. 18. That apart, it does not lie in the mouth of the State to raise the objection of delay, particularly when it has failed to keep its own house in order. Had the respondents processed petitioner’s application in time, perhaps the petitioner would have received the entire amount, which he had incurred for his post graduation course. Unfortunately, a meagre sum of Rs.64,232/- came to be paid to the petitioner in the month of April, 2022, when he was almost towards completion of his course. 19. The petitioner did not hear anything about the remaining amount; a series of exchange of mails and correspondence took place and ultimately he was visited with the order dated 27.02.2023. The time period of 12 months which has passed during period interregnum (since 27.02.2023) cannot be held as delay, let alone laches. 20. Adverting to the merit of petitioner’s entitlement, it is to be noted that on 05.10.2021, the State Government launched the Scheme for the purpose of giving support for academic excellence to the students, irrespective of their family income. The Scheme provides that the scholarship would be given to 200 students in a year, in different courses, including Master’s Degree in Law. The Scheme provides that the scholarship would be given to 200 students in a year, in different courses, including Master’s Degree in Law. The Scheme clearly mentions that the benefit would be given to 200 persons, albeit with a rider that firstly the persons having family income of less than Rs.8,00,000/- would be given benefit and if 200 persons from such class (persons having family income less than Rs.8,00,000/-) are not available, then the scholarship would be disbursed to the students, who are having family income of more than Rs.8,00,000/-. 21. It is not in dispute that at the relevant point, only 18 students were found eligible and the petitioner’s case was taken up for consideration under RGS Scheme. It is an admitted fact that the Joint Director (Academic) had sent a mail dated 01.02.2022 to the petitioner informing that he has been provisionally selected under RGS. 22. A perusal of the Scheme makes it abundantly clear that once a candidate is selected as a beneficiary of the Scheme, then his family income becomes redundant – there is no difference in quantum of scholarship to be given based on family income. It would not be out of place to reproduce clause 6 and clause 8 of the RGS Scheme. “Clause 6- Income Ceiling (1) Total family income from all sources of the candidate should not exceed Rs.8.00 lakh per annum. A copy of the latest tax assessment also is enclosed in the application. (2) If the seats are not filled within the given period underclause 1 of the income ceiling, then candidate whose family income exceeds Rs.8.00 Lac per annum will also be considered. Clause 8 – Value of the Scholarship (I) Annual Maintenance Allowance – The Annual maintenance allowance of 10,00,000/- Rupees for all levels of courses covered under the Scheme. (II) Annual Contingency and Equipment Allowance – The Annual Contingency and Equipment Allowance for books/essential apparatus/study tour/typing and thesis binding will be rupees 1,00,000/- will be provided. (III) Visa Fees – Actual visa fees in Indian Rupees will be paid. (IV) Tuition Fees – Tuition fees as per actual will be admissible. However, if the awardee gets any other financial assistance/scholarship in any form from the university/institution, the same will be deducted from the sanctioned amount. (V) Medical Insurance Premium – Actual as charged will be admissible. (III) Visa Fees – Actual visa fees in Indian Rupees will be paid. (IV) Tuition Fees – Tuition fees as per actual will be admissible. However, if the awardee gets any other financial assistance/scholarship in any form from the university/institution, the same will be deducted from the sanctioned amount. (V) Medical Insurance Premium – Actual as charged will be admissible. (VI) Cost of Air Passage – Airfare with economy class for the shortest route from India to the destination and back to India will be permissible. (VII) Revision of Rates – All the awardees already under going studies abroad would also be eligible to receive the revised rates as approved in the Scheme and its modified form with future effect. (VIII) Mode of Disbursement – The Government of Rajasthan will decide the mode of disbursement of above listed financial assistance.” 23. A perusal of the above quoted clause 8 leaves no room for ambiguity that if a student is selected, then he is entitled for scholarship/reimbursement of all the amounts mentioned under the above headings, regardless of his family income. 24. There cannot be any denial of the fact that tuition fee was taken care of by the Cambridge University itself and the petitioner was required to pay remaining amount to the Cambridge University. Apart from the tuition fee, there are various headings, such as annual maintenance allowance; visa fee and air passage etc., which the State was required to pay to the students pursuing the notified course in the prescribed Universities. 25. Adverting to the purported amendment brought into force from 15.06.2022, and its effect, this Court is firmly of the view that the same cannot be made applicable to the petitioner’s case. As a passing remark, this Court hastens to add that under the guise of issuance of guidelines, the Commissionerate of College Education could not have amended the Scheme; if the Scheme were to be amended, the same could be amended by specific order. 26. Be that as it may. 27. As a passing remark, this Court hastens to add that under the guise of issuance of guidelines, the Commissionerate of College Education could not have amended the Scheme; if the Scheme were to be amended, the same could be amended by specific order. 26. Be that as it may. 27. Even if the purported guidelines are taken to be amendment of the Scheme by the State Government, it is to be noted that the same came into being on 15.06.2022, whereas the petitioner had received the offer letter from the Cambridge University on 19.08.2021; applied for the scholarship on 03.11.2021 and proceeded to London for reporting to Cambridge University on 22.09.2021 which events happened prior to the amendment. 28. The petitioner had received a letter on 01.02.2023 informing that he has been provisionally selected for RGS, and a part payment (Rs.64,232/-) was made to him on 19.04.2022. As the petitioner’s application had been processed by the State on 19.04.2022, only the balance amount remained to be paid. If the procedural part of verifying and paying the balance amount took some time, which too was attributable to the State, it cannot slam the doors on petitioner’s face with a plea that now the Scheme has been amended. 29. It is apparent from the record that it was only when the petitioner pursued the matter with the respondents, certain queries were raised and the petitioner was asked to furnish the details of his family income, which is evident from e-mail dated 13.07.2022 sent by the Nodal Officer of RGS Scheme. It was apparently sent in order to reject petitioner’s claim in the garb of the amendment of the Scheme. 30. The petitioner willingly furnished his family income, which was above Rs.25 lacs per annum and based on such family income, the respondents proceeded to turn down petitioner’s request for scholarship under RGS Scheme, on the pretext of the amendment brought into force by the State vide order dated 15.06.2022. 31. A look at the amendment dated 15.06.2022 reveals that by these amendment and guidelines, substance of the Scheme has been changed and the eligible amount has been made dependent upon family income that too segregated in four categories. 32. 31. A look at the amendment dated 15.06.2022 reveals that by these amendment and guidelines, substance of the Scheme has been changed and the eligible amount has been made dependent upon family income that too segregated in four categories. 32. According to the respondents, as per amendment dated 15.06.2022, a candidate having family income of more than Rs.25,00,000/- was entitled for reimbursement/scholarship of tuition fee alone and since the tuition fee of the petitioner was exempted or borne by the Cambridge University, petitioner is not entitled for any further amount. 33. This Court is of the considered opinion that respondents’ stand is per-se untenable, apart from being arbitrary. As the petitioner got admission in LLM Course by Cambridge University on 19.08.2021 and had applied under RGS Scheme on 03.11.2021, his case was required to be considered on the basis of provision of the Scheme which were in vogue, on the date when he had applied under the Scheme. 34. It is not in dispute that not only at the time of applying even on 01.02.2022, when petitioner was provisionally selected for scholarship, no amendment had been brought. The amendment was incidentally brought ten days ahead of the declaration of petitioner’s result (28.06.2022), but definitely after he had appeared in the examination (09.06.2022). 35. This Court cannot countenance the State’s action of quelling or crushing legit claim of the petitioner on the basis of the amendment which was introduced subsequently. 36. It is pertinent to note that on 21.04.2022, the respondents had disbursed a sum of Rs.64,232/- to the petitioner. On enquiries being made, the petitioner came to learn that this amount was towards visa fee (Rs.37,122/-) and cost of Air Ticket - Delhi to London (Rs. 27,110/-). As such, the State had not only provisionally selected the petitioner under RGS Scheme, but has also acted in furtherance of such selection and paid the amount as per the Scheme dated 05.10.2021. As such, the State’s stand that petitioner was entitled only for tuition fee falls flat on the ground. 37. That apart, the State’s action is arbitrary and hit by doctrine of legitimate expectation. As such, the State’s stand that petitioner was entitled only for tuition fee falls flat on the ground. 37. That apart, the State’s action is arbitrary and hit by doctrine of legitimate expectation. By way of promulgating the RGS Scheme on 05.10.2021, the State made a promise rather showed a rosy picture to the students that their dream of going abroad for academic excellence would be a reality, as they would get scholarship, which would include annual maintenance allowance, air fare and visa expenses apart from tuition fee and boarding etc. The petitioner chose to go abroad in a hope that all his expenses will be reimbursed by the State under the Scheme, the State did pay a sum of Rs.64,232/- in April, 2022, but took a U-turn and shattered his dreams and future plans by denying the scholarship. The State cannot resile from its commitment which has given rise to legitimate belief in the mind of eligible students. Such vindictive approach of the State not only deserves to be deprecated but also reprimanded. 38. There is no gainsaying the fact that the petitioner was found eligible under the Scheme and by email dated 01.02.2022, he was informed about his provisional selection under the Scheme. According to this Court, a candidate falling within the four corners of the Scheme and found eligible, is entitled to receive all the benefits, as are available under the Scheme as prevalent on the date of application (03.11.2021). 39. It is noteworthy that Clause 8 of the RGS as notified on 05.10.2021 contains various heads of Financial Assistance. Subclause (I) & (II) of clause 8 of RGS provides for annual maintenance allowance of Rs.10,00,000/- and Annual Contingency and Equipment Allowance of Rs.1,00,000/-. These are allowances, independent of actual expenditure. 40. As against these allowances, there are other heads which clearly stipulate actual fee or expenses. Hence, so far as subclause (I) & (II) of clause 8 of RGS are concerned, no evidence of actual expenditure is required and it is only for other heads, proof of actual expenses is required. 41. The fact that out of various heads, the respondents have paid a sum of Rs.64,232/- towards visa fee (Rs.37,122/-) and (Rs.27,110/-) air passage (Delhi to London) is an established fact on record, which are to be paid as per actuals. 41. The fact that out of various heads, the respondents have paid a sum of Rs.64,232/- towards visa fee (Rs.37,122/-) and (Rs.27,110/-) air passage (Delhi to London) is an established fact on record, which are to be paid as per actuals. There are other heads, where the proof of actual expenses is/was necessary, which the petitioner claims to have furnished. It was thus, incumbent upon the respondents to pay such amount of-course after verification. The approach of the respondents in outrightly negating petitioner’s claim cannot be countenanced. 42. The present writ petition is, therefore, allowed. 43. The impugned communication dated 27.02.2023 issued by the Joint Director (Academic) of the Commissionerate, College Education is hereby quashed and set aside. 44. The respondents are directed to determine the amount payable to the petitioner on the basis of the provisions of RGS that were prevalent on the date of application (03.11.2021), obviously, prior to the so called amendment (dated 15.06.2022) being brought into force, being mindful of the observation made herein. 45. For the purpose of calculating the amount in terms of the order instant, the petitioner shall furnish a statement with actual expenditure (wherever required) alongwith requisite evidence within a period of 10 days from today alongwith a certified copy of the order instant. 46. Petitioner’s request for interest at the rate of 12% is turned down in a hope that good sense will prevail over the State authorities and they will act in tendem with the avowed object of an amelioration Scheme and pay the due amount to the petitioner without any delay. 47. The amount be paid by 31.08.2024, failing which, it shall carry interest at the rate of 9% from 01.09.2024 till the date of actual payment. 48. Though, it is a fit case where cost should be imposed on the State, but this Court refrains from imposing the cost considering the request of Mr. Patel, learned Additional Advocate General. 49. The stay application and all interlocutory application stand disposed of.