Dismissed

Dheeru Kumar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC5 Mar 2020WRIC/1671/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Supreme Court examined whether petitioners admitted in left-over seats after the counseling process, who had not qualified the Joint Entrance Examination, were entitled to scholarships under the Modified Rules of 2012. The Court held that such students are excluded from the scheme, which benefits only meritorious Scholastic students. The plea for parity with management/spot quota students was

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as petitioners lack merit to claim parity with management quota students under the amended rules.

Dheeru Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 39

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1671 of 2020

¶4

Petitioner :- Dheeru Kumar And 4 Others Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vibhu Rai,Abhinav Gaur,Anoop Trivedi (Senior Adv.) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rohit Pandey

¶5

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

¶6

Petitioners, who are five in number, have approached this Court for a direction upon the State authorities to release scholarship to them for the academic sessions 2018-19 and 2019-20 in accordance with Uttar Pradesh Anusuchit Jati Aur Anusuchit Janjati Dashmottar Chatravritty Yojna Niyamawali, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 2012') and to continue to release the same in subsequent academic sessions of B.Tech course.

¶7

A perusal of record would go to show that the petitioners have been denied scholarship under the Rules of 2012 as they have not qualified the joint entrance examination and are consequently treated in the exempted category of students like those belonging to the management quota or spot counseling etc. It is urged on behalf of the petitioners that the State Government has already framed the Rules of 2012 for payment of fee reimbursement/scholarship to the students which does not contain any clause exempting them from the grant of benefit of scholarship. The Rules of 2012 is contained in Annexure-1 to the writ petition. It is urged with reference to the provisions of Rules of 2012 that there is no stipulation for denying scholarship to students who have been admitted without qualifying the Joint Entrance Examination, and

¶8

¶9

therefore, a condition not stipulated in the rules cannot be made the basis for denying consideration to petitioners' claim for payment of scholarship.

¶10

While taking note of such submissions this Court had passed following orders on 13.2.2020:-

¶11

“As per the instructions received by learned Standing Counsel, petitioners' claim for grant of scholarship under the scheme of the State is not liable to be entertained as the petitioners have been admitted under management quota.

¶12

Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners states that petitioners in fact have not been admitted in the management quota but have been admitted against left over counseling seats as per the instructions issued by the University contained in circular dated 6th July, 2018. It is stated that petitioners got themselves registered as per the procedure laid down in the notice dated 6th July, 2018 and their admission cannot be treated to be that of management quota. Learned Senior Counsel also places reliance upon a communication sent by the University to the Director, Samaj Kalyan dated 6.2.2019, according to which the petitioners, who have been admitted against left over counseling seats, are entitled to payment of scholarship under the scheme of the State.

¶13

Learned Standing Counsel as also Sri Rohit Pandey who appears for the University will obtain instructions and place before the Court relevant Government Orders, as per which petitioners' admission is being treated as one under the management quota. Post as fresh, once again, on 25.2.2020.”

¶14

Learned Standing Counsel has obtained instructions, according to which the scholarship scheme formulated in the year 2012 has been modified vide Government Orders dated

¶15

¶16

16.1.2018 and 26.6.2018, as also a clarificatory letter issued by the Director, Department of Social Welfare on 30.10.2019. It is stated that the scheme contemplates payment of fee reimbursement/scholarship to those students who have been admitted as per procedure laid down for admission i.e. passing of entrance examination etc. and the category of students like management quota and spot admissions have clearly been excluded from the benefit of scholarship under the scheme. It is also sought to be urged that petitioners have not participated in the counselling and having been directly admitted by the management they fall in the category of students who are excluded from the purview of scholarship scheme. It is also submitted that petitioners having been directly admitted by the college cannot assert any higher priority than the students admitted in management quota, particularly as those students (management quota and spot counselling) have atleast cleared the joint entrance test whereas petitioners have not.

¶17

Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the management quota has already been specified in the Government Order dated 26.6.2018 and that petitioners cannot be treated to be falling in that category. Learned Senior Counsel has further invited attention of the Court to a notice published by the University on 6.7.2018, which refers to the Government Order dated 16.1.2018. The notice, as also the Government Order dated 16.1.2018, makes it explicit that all admissions are to be made in the affiliated colleges only pursuant to their registration in the University and no admission could be offered to a student unless he has got himself registered on the website created for the purpose by the University. It is contended that petitioners have been

¶18

¶19

admitted after following the procedure laid down in the notice dated 6.7.2018 and is otherwise in accordance with Government Order dated 16.1.2018. Submission is that a new category cannot be carved out by the State, at this stage, to deny benefit of scholarship to petitioners, particularly when such a contemplation otherwise neither existed in the Rules of 2012 nor in any Government Order.

¶20

I have heard Sri Anoop Trivedi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Vibhu Rai for the petitioners, Sri Rohit Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent University and learned Standing Counsel for the State authorities.

¶21

I have examined the rival contentions raised by the parties and have also perused the materials placed on record before me, including the Government Orders dated 16.1.2018 and 26.6.2018. The scheme for payment of scholarship was notified by the State Government in the year 2012 vide Rules of 2012 and the entitlement to receive benefit of fee reimbursement has been enumerated therein. The Rules of 2012 have not been issued under any statutory provision and is in effect in the nature of administrative instruction/ Government Order dated 26.9.2012. The scholarship scheme contained in the Rules of 2012 has been modified from time to time by issuing subsequent Government Orders/instructions. It regulates the payment of scholarship to students and various provisions have been introduced from time to time, specifying the category of students who would not be entitled to fee reimbursement.

¶22

The admission to B.Tech. Course in various engineering colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh is regulated by the State

¶23

¶24

Government by issuing Government Orders from time to time. Ordinarily, such government orders are issued for each academic year. So far as admission to B.Tech course in academic session 2018-19 is concerned, it is regulated by the Government Order dated 16.1.2018. This Government Order substantially retains the admission procedure laid down for the previous academic sessions. The admission is to be offered in the engineering colleges as per the merit of a candidate in the joint entrance test to be conducted by the concerned University as per counselling in order to maintain transparency and fairness in the process of admission itself. The seats for admission are offered strictly based on merits, as per the criteria laid down in the Government Order dated 16.1.2018. Clause 2 of the Government Order is relevant for the present purpose and is reproduced hereinafter:-

¶25

“2- ”Mk0 ,0ih0ts0 vCnqy dyke izkfof/kd fo'ofo|ky;] m0iz0 y[kuÅ ds fu;a=.kk/khu fMxzh Lrjh; vfHk;a=.k@O;olkf;d laLFkkvksa esa 'kSf{kd l= 2018&19 esa fuEuor izfdz;k fu/kkZfjr dh tkrh gS%&

¶26

1% i(d) 'kkldh; vunkfur vfHk;a=.k laLFkkuksa] fo'ofo|ky; d ? kVd@lg;qDr laLFkkuksa okLrqdyk ladk; vkfn leLr laLFkkuksa esa izos'k ds lEcU/k eas iwoZ fu/kkZfjr izfdz;k ;Fkkor jgsxhA

¶27

([k) 'kkldh; foRr iksf"kr@vuqnkfur vfHk;a=.k laLFkkvksa esa dkmfUlfyax ds mijkUr fjDRk lhVksa ij Nk=ksa ds izos'k gsrq 'kSf{kd l= 2018&19 eas LikV dkmfUlfyax djk;s tkus lEca/kh LikV dkmfUlfyax dks 'kqfprkiw.kZ ,ao ikjn'khZ djk;s tkus ds mn~ns'; ls fuEufyf[kr izkfo/kkuksa dk vuqikyu lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;sxkA

¶28

(A) fo'ofo|ky; }kjk fu/kkZfjr vfUre pj.k dh dkmfUlfyax ds i'pkr lHkh 'kkldh; laLFkkuksa esa fjDRk lhVksa ij dkmfUlfyax )kjk ik;s x;s Nk=ksa dks vkUrfjd czkap ifjorZu dk volj iznku fd;k tk; ,so mlds i'pkr fjDr jg xbZ lhVksa dk fooj.k fdlh Hkh n'kk esa fnukad 30-07-2018 rd fo'ofo|ky; dks miyC/k dj fn;k tk;A

¶29

(B) izos'k ijh{kk dh jSad ds vk/kkj ij esfjV fyLV rS;kj djrs gq, Li"V dkmfUlfyax vkuykbu lEikfnr dh tk;sxhA

¶30

(C) 'kkldh;@'kkldh; vuqnkfur laLFkkuksa esa vfUre :i ls fjDr lhVksa ij dsoy mUgh vgZ Nk=@Nk=kvksa dks ekSdk fn;k tk;] ftls fdlh dkj.k o'k

¶31

¶32

dkmfUlfyax esa dksbZ lhV vkoafVr u gqbZ gks vFkok ftl Nk=@Nk=k us izos'k ijh{kk mRrh.kZ dj jSad izkIr dh gks vkSj dkmfUlfyax esa izfrHkkx u dj ldk@ldh gks] vFkkZr Li"V dkmfUlfyax esa b.Vjuy f'kfQ~aV ds i'pkr fjDr cph lhVksa ij ogh Nk=@Nk=k;s izos'k gsrq vgZ gksxsa] ftUgsa dkmfUlfyax )kjk dksbZ lhV vkoafVr u gqbZ gks vFkok ftuds )kjk lhV vkoaVu ds i'pkr fu;e le; vof/k esa withdrawl dj fy; x;k gksA

¶33

(ii) ;w0ih0 Mksfelkby (izns'k ds vH;FkhZ)

¶34

futh fMxzh Lrjh; vfHk;a=.k O;olkf;d laLFkkvksa esa dqy 75 izfr'kr lhVsa ;wih,lbZbZ&2018 }kjk ;wih Mksfelkby vkosndksa ls Hkjh tk;sxhA

¶35

(iii) uku ;w0ih0 Mksfelkby (izns'k ds ckgj ds vH;FkhZ)

¶36

futh fMxzh Lrjh; vfHk;a=.k @O;olkf;d laLFkkvksa esa 10 izfr'kr lhVsa , 0vkbZ0bZ0bZ0bZ0 (tsbZbZ esUl) vFkok ;wih,lbZbZ&2018 ds ek/;e ls uku ;wih Mksfelkby vkosndksa ls Hkjh tk;sxhA

¶37

(iv) eSustesUV@,u0vkj0vkbZ0 dksVk%&

¶38

futh fMxzh Lrjh; vfHk;a=.k @O;olkf;d laLFkkvksa esa 15 izfr'kr lhVs eSustesUV@,u0vkj0vkbZ0 dksVk izns'k ds vFkok izns'k ds ckgj ds Nk=ksa ls ;wih,lbZbZ vFkok ,vkbZbZbZ (tsbZbZ esUl) ds vk/kkj ij Hkjh tk; s axhA

¶39

(v) dkmfUlfyax ds mijkUr futh {ks= esa Lfkkfir laLFkkvksa esa fjDr cph lhVksa ds izos'k gsrq laLFkk Lrj ij vH;fFkZ;ksa dks izos'k gsrq fuEukuqlkj esfjV ds vk/kkj ij ojh;rk iznkus dh tk;saxh%&

¶40

1 fo'ofo|ky; ls lEc) lHkh futh vfHk;a=.k ,ao O;olkf;d laLFkkuksa esa ;wih,lbZbZ&2018] tsbZbZ esUl] fdlh jkT; ljdkj vFkok jk"Vªh; Lrj ij vk;ksftr izos'k ijh{kk esa mRrh.kZA

¶41

2 vf[ky Hkkjrh; rduhdh f'k{kk ifj"kn] ubZ fnYYkh )kjk le;≤ ij fofHkUu ikB~;dzeksa esa izos'k gsrq ;Fkk fu/kkZfjr v|ru izHkkoh vgZRkk (vuqyXud&,) ds vk/kkj ijA

¶42

mDr iz;kstu gsrq fo'ofo|ky; )kjk ,d iksVZYk vksisu fd;k tk;sxk] ftles mijksDrkuqlkj mRrh.kZ Nk=@Nk=kvksa ls izkIrkadks ds vk/kkj Ikj vkosnu izkIr fd;k tk;sxk ,ao mudh ojh;rk lwph fo'ofo|ky; ds osclkbV ij iznf'kZr dh tks;sxhA lEc) leLr futh vfHk;a=.k ,ao O;olkf;d laLFkkvksa }kjk mDr iznf'kZr ojh;rk lwph es ls fjDr cph lhVksa ij izos'k vuqeU; fd;k tk;sxkA”

¶43

The counselling process also includes admission by the concerned colleges on the basis of management/NRI quota for which 15% seats have been specifically reserved. The 15% management/NRI quota seats can be offered to students who are not domiciled in the State of Uttar Pradesh and have passed UPSEE or AIEEE (JEE Mains) Examination. Spot counselling is

¶44

¶45

also allowed only for such students who have cleared the Joint Entrance Test but have not been able to secure admission on merits. It is only after exhausting all seats available for admission pursuant to counselling of students who have qualified Joint Entrance Test that admission is made permissible for the students who have not qualified Joint Entrance Test or other entrance examination. The seats which are still left after exhausting all rounds of counselling can be offered to students as per their merits if they have got themselves registered on the website of University concerned. Preference is required to be given to those students who have passed UPSEE Examination-2018, JEE examination or any other entrance examination conducted by national or any other state level agency. So far as regulating the admission on left over seats is concerned, a clear contemplation has been made that such seats cannot be offered unless the candidate gets himself registered on the website of University concerned. The object of registration with the University is to retain some control by the University with regard to identity of students and to rule out any undesirable act on part of the college in ignoring merit for the purposes of grant of admission. The registration of students with the University for admission has apparently no concern with the determination of merit or payment of scholarship which is regulated by the Rules of 2012.

¶46

The State Government has also issued a subsequent Government Order on 26.6.2018 amending the Rules of 2012 vide Seventh Amendment Rules, 2018. 'Fee' as is defined in clause 5(xvii) of the Rules of 2012 has been amended in following terms:-

¶47

“5(xvii)- “'kqYd“ dk rkRi;Z ,slh vfuok;Z /kujkf'k ls gS] tks vH;fFkZ;ksa n~okjk

¶48

¶49

laLFkku ;k fo'ofo|ky; vFkok cksMZ dks Hkqxrku fd;k tkrk gS] rFkkfi tekurksa tek jkf'k tSlh okil dh tkus okyh /kujkf'k blesa 'kkfey ugha gksxhA 'kqYd ds vUrxZr izos'[email protected]] ijh{kk] f'k{kk] [ksy] ;wfu;u] ykbczsjh] if=dk] fpfdRlk tkap vkSj ,sls vU; vfuok;Z o okil u dh tkus okyh 'kqYd vkfn] tks l{ke Lrj ls vuqeU; gks a ] 'kkfey gksxhA Nk=kokl@esl 'kqYd tSls 'kYd blesa lfEefyr ugha gksxsaA

¶50

uksV%& 1 jktdh; o futh {ks= ds f'k{k.k laLFkkuk a s esa ,d ikB~;dze esa ,d gh ckj esa lEiw.kZ 'kqYd dh vuqefr leLr /kujkf'k Hkqxrku fd;s tkus ij Nk=@Nk=k,a bl ;kstuk esa vik= gksxsaA

¶51

uksV%& 2 fdlh fo'ofo|ky; ; f'k{k.k laLFkku es izcU/kdh; dksVk lhV]LikV (spot) izos'k lhV ds lkis{k izosf'kr Nk=@Nk=kvksa n~okjk nkok fd;s x;s 'kqYd dh izfriwfrZ vuqekU; ugha gksxh%”

¶52

Second note added to clause 5(xvii) clearly excludes a student admitted in the management quota or spot counselling from the benefit of fee reimbursement under the Rules of 2012. The second note contained in the Government Order dated 26.6.2018 is not under challenge. The interpretation of this clause is warranted in the facts of the present case as the petitioners contend that this note will not be attracted upon them inasmuch as their admission is neither in the management quota nor in the spot admission category.

¶53

The Government Order dated 16.1.2018 which lays down the procedure for admission, will have to be analyzed in accordance with the Rules of 2012, as amended vide Government Order dated 26.6.2018, in order to appreciate the controversy raised in the matter. It is apparent that the admission process contemplates grant of admission to students based upon their merit determined in the Joint Entrance Examination. The students belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe category, who are offered admission in the academic session 2018-19 as per their merit determined in Joint Entrance Text, followed by their admission in the counselling alone are entitled to payment of scholarship as per

¶54

¶55

the amended Rules of 2012. The Rules of 2012, as amended on 26.6.2018 is not under challenge. The admissions offered to students in the management quota or spot counselling have been denied benefit of fee reimbursement under the Rules of 2012 for the academic session 2018-19. The object behind denial of scholarship to students admitted in the management quota or in the spot admission category is apparently to restrict the benefit of scholarship to such students who have competed in their category and have secured admission based on merits. The scholarship scheme has been envisaged by the State with the object of facilitating and encouraging grant of higher education to the students belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe category who are otherwise meritorious and are not able to pursue their studies only because of lack of funds/means. The scheme, therefore, clearly makes out a distinction between those who have been admitted purely on the basis of their merits and those who have been admitted in management quota/spot counselling. A higher fee is otherwise payable to the educational institution by the students admitted in the management quota and the object is to facilitate generation of funds by private colleges to meet its requirements. Admission in management quota has otherwise been made permissible by the Apex Court in various judgements including Modern Dental College and Research Centre and others vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2010) 14 SCC 186. The distinction carved out by the State in the matter of payment of scholarship under the Rules of 2012, based on merits of the students determined in the Joint Entrance Test and the consequential process of admission by way of counselling has an intelligible differentia and a definite object to achieve which cannot be termed as arbitrary.

¶56

¶57

The petitioners cannot arrogate to themselves a higher status/merit than the students admitted in the management quota or spot counselling round. Petitioners have admittedly not qualified the Joint Entrance Examination and have been admitted only against the seats left vacant after exhausting the counselling process (including management quota and spot counselling). It is already noticed that students admitted in management quota or spot counselling have to pass the Joint Entrance Examination and their merit would have to be treated higher than the students who are directly offered admission against the left over seats like the petitioners. The mere fact that petitioners got themselves registered with the University for admission will not enhance their merits.

¶58

The payment of scholarship as per the Rules of 2012 is not a matter of right and ultimately remains to be considered in accordance with the scheme. Once the scheme itself makes a conscious distinction between those who are admitted on the strength of their merits in the Joint Entrance Examination followed by counselling, vis-a-vis those who have secured admission under management quota or spot admission category, no claim of parity can be sought. The petitioners contend that they do not belong to management quota and are also not in the category of spot admission in the counselling. Petitioners' merit based on the nature of admission offered to them places them in a category inferior to that of a student admitted in management quota/spot counselling category. Since the Rules of 2012, as amended on 26.6.2018, excludes the students placed in management quota/spot counselling from the benefit of fee reimbursement under the Rules of 2012, the petitioners, placed lower in merit, cannot claim payment of

¶59

¶60

scholarship under the Rules of 2012. In case the argument of Sri Trivedi is accepted then it would result in an arbitrary situation where students placed lower in merit will be entitled to payment of scholarship while students higher in merit placed in management quota/spot counselling will be denied such benefit. The claim of petitioners, therefore, must fail.

¶61

The position otherwise appears to have been further clarified by the State vide Government Order dated 14.10.2019 as per which the entitlement to receive scholarship to the students belonging to management quota has entirely been done away with. Even otherwise, petitioners have not secured admission on the strength of their merit to be determined in the Joint Entrance Examination result. In such circumstances, if the State has denied consideration to petitioners' claim for grant of scholarship, no exception can be taken to it.

¶62

Writ petitioner, therefore, lacks merit and is dismissed.

¶63

Order Date :- 5.3.2020 Ashok Kr.

Dheeru Kumar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dheeru Kumar and 4 Others v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The C/M Bhadaon Inter College Thalaipur Mau through Its Manager Prem Shanker Rai and Another Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Sukirti Savita Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Amit Kumar and 34 Others Vs Union of India and 4 Others

Praveen Kumar Jha Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Nav Jagran Purv Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Kurahuan, Varanasi Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Km. Rinku Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others