Allowed

Pulast Tiwari v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2024WRIC/13143/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge Bench allowed a writ petition seeking scholarship for the petitioner, directing the State to pay the admissible amount within three months, holding that a budget lapse cannot deprive an eligible candidate of statutory benefits.

What did the court decide?

Direct respondent no. 2 to pay the admissible scholarship to the petitioner under the Scheme within three months of producing the certified copy of the order.

Pulast Tiwari vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:135672

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 13143 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Pulast Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Ajay Giri,Akhilendra Singh,Ramanuj Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Diptiman Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Akhilendra Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and Shri Diptiman Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3.

¶7

Present petition has been filed with the following main reliefs:-

¶8

" i) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent no. 2 to consider the application dated 06.02.2024 and to rectify the technical mistake being done on the part of respondent no. 2 and provide the scholarship to the petitioner and let the petitioner avail the benefit of the U.P. Scholarship Scheme 2023-24 for the Post Matric Scholarship other than intermediate.

¶9

ii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to respondent no. 2 to let the petitioner avail the benefit of the U.P. Scholarship Scheme 2023-24 for the Post Matric Scholarship other than intermediate."

¶10

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is eligible for getting the benefit of the U.P. Scholarship Scheme 2023-24 for the Post Matric Scholarship thus, he made an application for grant of scholarship.

¶11

It is further submitted that the scholarship was not being granted to the petitioner and on being inquired, it was found that respondent no. 4-Arpita has been granted the scholarship, who used the roll number of High School of the petitioner in her application.

¶12

It is further submitted that the petitioner has submitted the application was made within time and there is no fault on the part of the petitioner so he could not be deprived of grant of scholarship under the scheme, as mentioned above.

¶13

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of

¶14

counter affidavit has submitted that the petitioner is eligible and entitled for the grant of scholarship and inadvertently the scholarship form of the respondent no. 4 was cleared wherein roll number of the High School of the petitioner has been mentioned.

¶15

It is further submitted that now the difficulty before the authorities is that the financial year has come to an end on 31.03.2024 and the budget has lapsed so the scholarship could not be granted to the petitioner according to the Rules.

¶16

Shri Diptiman Singh, learned counsel for the University has submitted that State authorities are responsible for deprivation of scholarship to the petitioner and University has no role in the same and the same could also be seen from the order of this Court dated 09.08.2024.

¶17

Replying the aforesaid submission submitted by learned Standing Counsel regarding the lapse of budget after the end of the financial year, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that on the ground that due to lapse of budget or finance, the eligible candidate can not be denied for scholarship and in support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this court dated 27.09.2022 passed in Writ C No. 14667 of 2021 (Yaqoob Alam and others Vs. State of U.P. and anothers).

¶18

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case and the judgment in the case of the Yaqoob Alam (supra), it is found that this Court has passed the judgment in the case of Yaqoob Alam (supra) while placing reliance upon the judgment in the case of Special Appeal Defective No. 581 of 2014 (State of U.P. and others Vs. Swami Vivekanand Law College B.K.T. Lucknow) dated 23.02.2015. Reliance has also been placed upon the case of Aditya Tiwari and another Vs. the State of U.P. and others reported in 2020 (38) LCD 2502 wherein this Court has held that scholarship to an eligible candidate could not be denied on the ground that the scheme/budget of the specific year has lapsed.

¶19

The petitioner could not be denied the benefit of scholarship as admitted by the State respondents as he comes within the ambit of scheme of scholarship and just because of the end of the financial year, he could not be denied the benefit of the said scheme, as per the law laid down by this Court in the case of Yaqoob Alam (supra).

¶20

In view of the facts, circumstances and discussion made hereinabove, the writ petition is allowed.

¶21

Respondent no. 2 is directed to ensure that the admissible scholarship be paid to the petitioner under the Scheme within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

¶22

Order Date :- 23.8.2024 Ashish

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH MISHRA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Pulast Tiwari v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pulast Tiwari 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Divisional Organization Secy., Uttar Railway Karmchari Union Vs Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court and Another

Numaisha Begum and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. (Law) Lko. and 5 Others

Ghanshyam Singh Vs Addl. Labour Commissioner Lko. and 4 Others

Nisha Kumar Vs Sunny Rai

Prahlad and 5 Others Vs Civil Judge J.D Kadipur Distt. Sultanpur and 2 Others

Ramkaran Shukla Thru. Krishna Dev Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Law U.P. Lko and 6 Others