Dismissed

R.K. College of Systems and Management Thru Its Chairman v. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Social Welfare andORS

Allahabad HC7 Aug 2024WRIC/1001758/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

AHC dismissed a writ petition challenging the UP SChs/SCTs Fee Reimbursement Scheme, 2012. The Bench held the rules were not arbitrary despite directing fees to student accounts and upheld the State's authority to curb false enrolment claims and meet constitutional mandates for education.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as bereft of merits; the Rules of 2012 upheld.

R.K. College of Systems and Management Thru Its… — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:54309

¶2

Court No. - 7

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 1001758 of 2013

¶4

Petitioner :- R.K. College Of Systems And Management Thru Its Chairman

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Social Welfare Andors

¶6

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ram Raj Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶7

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶8

Heard Shri Ram Raj, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶9

The petitioner has challenged the Uttar Pradesh Anusuchit Jati/Anusuchit Janjati Dashmottar Chhatravrati Yojna Niyamawali-2012 as ultra-vires and also for a direction to the State-respondents not to fill up the forms of the students admitted to the petitioner institution who do not pay the fees with the petitioner institution.

¶10

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that the petitioner institution is a private unaided educational institution imparting B.Ed. course. It is further stated that it is managed and controlled by R.K. Convent School Educational Society, New Delhi registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, 1860.

¶11

The grievance of the petitioner which has led to assailing the Rules of 2012 is the fact that the students belonging to the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe were entitled for reimbursement of the educational fees by the State Government as per the Rules. One and all are taking the advantage of said beneficial government policy and on the other hand, they are

¶12

not paying the fees to the petitioner institution. Accordingly, it is the case of the petitioner that instead of payment of fees to the students a policy should prescribe payment of the fees directly to the institutions and accordingly, has challenged the Rules of 2012 as ultra-vires.

¶13

The Rules of 2012 were framed by the State Government for giving benefit to the disadvantage section of the society and also to the educationally backward section, who belong to the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe. It was provided that the fees charged by various educational institutions including the security to be deposited by the students, the expenses during the education, the expenses incurred in research work, typing etc. and an extra amount to the specially abled students were sought to be reimbursed by the State Government. The procedure in detail was prescribed under Rule 12. According to which, when the student approaches a particular educational institution, he has to fill up an agreement form with the said institution. The institutions were given the responsibility of ascertaining the veracity of the statements, educational qualifications of the student approaching him for admission and after duly verifying the record by a committee as prescribed under Rule 12 (3), the same was to be sent to the Government for being entered into the database and also to the Prescribed Authority in the District and the Regional Officer concerned. At the District Level also, a committee was constituted headed by the concerned District Magistrate for sanctioning the reimbursement of the educational fees of the aforesaid students. The District Social Welfare officer was also made responsible for operation of the said scheme. The manner of reimbursement was specifically provided in clause 10 of the Rule 12, according to which, the students are under a mandate to open a bank account in close proximity to the said institution and the fees was to be

¶14

reimbursed directly to the said account. The students were also required to pay the said fees to the institution within a period of fifteen days from the date credited to his account.

¶15

One of the main contention raised by the petitioner is that once the fees is remitted to the accounts of the students, the institution does not have any control or mechanism to obtain the said fees from the students, in case the student chooses not to pay the fees to the institution.

¶16

Apart from the above, it was further stated that the said scheme is arbitrary and illegal, inasmuch as, it does not have any nexus to the object said to be achieved. He submits that it is clear in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

¶17

Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that by promulgating the said scheme, the State Government has to fulfill the mandate constitutionally provided under Article 15 of the Constitution of India. Learned Standing Counsel has further submitted that to achieve the aim and objects enshrined in Chapter IV of the Constitution of India and specifically under Article 38 and 46, the said scheme was brought in to give financial assistance to the students belonging to the scheduled caste and scheduled tribe, who are financially disadvantage section of the society and unable to pursue the higher education course and they should not be deprived of the education merely on account of financial constraints.

¶18

He has submitted that considering the mandate given to the Government under Chapter IV of the Constitution of India, the said reimbursement rules were framed.

¶19

This Court after thoughtful consideration of the aforesaid submission of learned counsel for parties finds that merely because of the machinery provision contained in Rule 12 (10) where the reimbursement fees has to be deposited by the State

¶20

Government directly in the account of the students thereafter has been directed to pay the same to the institution concerned, the Rules of 2012 has been assailed as arbitrarily. Even after considering the case of the petitioner that the students after receipt of the fees from the government do not pay the same to the institution, the institution can initiate appropriate proceedings or even take necessary action including suspending or expunging the said students after sufficient opportunity having been given to them regarding fees. Such matter can be taken by the institute but merely because there may arise certain difficulty in the future in realizing the educational fees cannot be a ground itself to render a beneficial piece of policy of the government to be arbitrary or illegal.

¶21

This Court has also considered the submission of the State Government where it was consciously decided that the fees will be paid directly to the bank accounts of the students, inasmuch as the precursor to the present rules, the fees was being paid paid directly to the institution reimbursing them for the fees to be paid by the students belonging to the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe. Several cases were reported to the State Government where the institutions have unreasonably applied for the number of students belonging to scheduled caste and scheduled tribe studying with the said institutes whereas on inquiry the actual number was found to be far lesser than what was submitted by such institutes and to curb such menace of reporting higher number of students belonging to the reserved category studying with the institutions, the State Government has consciously incorporated the said provision in the Rule of 2012.

¶22

In view of the matter the financial hardship can never be a ground for contesting a vires of any legislature or policy of the State Government.

¶23

It is in the aforesaid reasons, this Court does not find any merit in challenge to the Uttar Pradesh Anusuchit Jati/Anusuchit Janjati Dashmottar Chhatravrati Yojna Niyamawali-2012.

¶24

Accordingly, the writ petition is bereft of merits and the same is dismissed.

¶25

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶26

Order Date :- 7.8.2024 Virendra

¶27

Digitally signed by :- VIRENDRA KUMAR GUPTA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

R.K. College of Systems and Management Thru Its Chairman v. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Social Welfare andORS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

R.K. College of Systems and Management Thru Its Chairman v. State of U.P. Thru Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Social Welfare andORS

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rakesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Supply, Lko. and Others

Smt. Sudha Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Supply Civil Sectt. Lko. U.P. and 6 Others

Ram Swaroop Chaudhry Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Food and Supply, Lucknow and Others

M/S Sarswat Peroxides Private Ltd. Throu Its Director Vs the Commissioner Commercial Taxes U.P.Gomti Nagar Lko.

Arvind Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy., Deptt. of Panchayati Raj, Lucknow and Others

Munshi Lal Bharti Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 12 Others