Disposed

Tamseel Fatma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Delhi HC12 Sept 2024W.P.(C)/3552/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Eight minority PhD scholars petitioned against termination of their Maulana Azad National Fellowship stipends after NMDFC revoked the scheme citing ineligible family-income declarations. The Court found the application-form question ambiguously worded and ruled that penalising candidates for it, without verifying their Income Certificates or offering a chance to explain, was arbitrary and contrary

What did the court decide?

Revocation of fellowships set aside; verification of family income directed; reinstatement with arrears and consequential benefits if eligible; continuation of studies allowed pending decision.

Tamseel Fatma & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors. — Education and Admissions | Delhi HC (2024)

¶1

$~12

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

W.P.(C) 3552/2024 & CM APPL. 14470/2024 TAMSEEL FATMA & ORS. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Pranzal Jha, Ms. Vrinda Awasthi, Ms. Merlin Mathew, Mr. Siddhath Singh and Mr. Dinesh Monga, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Niraj Kumar, Senior Central Govt. Counsel with Mr. Chaitanya Kumar and Ms. Archana Kumari, Advocates for R-1 and 2/ UOI. Mr. Apoorv Kurup and Mr. Gauri Goburdhun, Advocates for R-3/ UGC. Mr. P.V. Dinesh, Senior Advocate with Ms. Anne Mathew, Ms. Anna Oommeh and Ms. Miranda Solaman, Advocates for R-9/ University of Kashmir.

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R % 12.09.2024

¶6

The eight Petitioners are aggrieved by the discontinuation of the Maulana Azad National Fellowship Scheme,¹ which is funded by the

¶7

1 “MACF Scheme”/ “the Scheme”

¶8

Page 1 of 10

¶9

W.P.(C) 3552/2024

¶10

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2024 at 12:08:08

¶11

Ministry of Minority Affairs and provides financial assistance to minority students pursuing M.Phil or PhD degrees. The termination of the Scheme has resulted in the cessation of the disbursement of stipends to the Petitioners under the Scheme, thereby impacting their ability to continue their academic pursuits.

¶12

BRIEF FACTS

¶13

The background leading to the filing of the present petition is as follows:

¶14

2.1. The Joint CSIR-UGC National Eligibility Test² is a national level examination, conducted by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research and University Grands Commission³ . This examination determines the eligibility of candidates for the Junior Research Fellowship and the position of Assistant Professor, enabling successful candidates to pursue PhDs in Indian universities and colleges.

¶15

2.2. The MANF Scheme is a beneficiary scheme administered by the Ministry of Minority Affairs through the UGC. The Scheme provides financial support to students belonging to six recognized minority communities, requiring beneficiaries to engage in full-time research in India leading to M.Phil or PhD degrees.

¶16

2.3. Due to the outbreak of COVID-19, the Joint CSIR-UGC NET Exam scheduled to be in 2021 was postponed and subsequently held between January, 2022 to February, 2022. The Petitioners appeared for this examination, and on 24^th March, 2022, the UGC released the results for the

¶17

2 “Joint CSIR-UGC NET Exam”

¶18

3 “UGC”

¶19

Page 2 of 10

¶20

W.P.(C) 3552/2024

¶21

This is a digitally signed order.

¶22

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2024 at 12:08:08

¶23

academic year 2021-2022, earmarking a list of students, including the Petitioners, for award of fellowship under MANF Scheme.

¶24

2.4. Accordingly, the Petitioners were issued their respective MANF award letters dated 11^th May, 2022 which categorically state that Petitioners are selected for award of fellowship for the tenure of five years. This duration commences from the date of declaration of results of Joint CSIRUGC NET Exam (i.e., 24^th March, 2022), the date of admission to an M.Phil/ PhD programme, or from the date of joining the M.Phil/ PhD programme, whichever is later.

¶25

2.5. In compliance with the eligibility criteria specified in the award letters, the Petitioners enrolled themselves in PhD programs at various universities to avail of the benefits provided under the Scheme. The details of the Petitioners’ universities along with their enrolment date are detailed as follows:

¶26

Page 3 of 10

¶27

W.P.(C) 3552/2024

¶28

This is a digitally signed order.

¶29

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2024 at 12:08:08

¶30

2.6. Subsequently, the Petitioners submitted the verification form-cumjoining report along with the requisite documents for availing fellowship under the Scheme. These documents were then forwarded to UGC by their respective universities to initiate the fellowship disbursement process.

¶31

2.7. In January 2023, National Minorities Development and Finance Corporation,⁴ the implementing agency of MANF Scheme, released a notification stating that they had discontinued the MANF Scheme from the academic year 2022-2023 onwards. The notification, however, clarified that

¶32

4 “NMDFC”

¶33

Page 4 of 10

¶34

W.P.(C) 3552/2024

¶35

¶36

existing students already availing the MANF Scheme would continue to receive their fellowships until the end of their respective tenures, subject to compliance with the existing guidelines.

¶37

2.8. Following this notification, Petitioners were assured by the Respondents that the discontinuation would not affect existing beneficiaries. Despite these assurances, on 06^th May, 2023, the Petitioners’ access to their student ID portals was abruptly terminated. Aggrieved by this action, the Petitioners filed multiple applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and submitted several representations to the Respondents, seeking clarification on the abrupt discontinuation of the MANF Scheme. However, they did not receive any substantive response.

¶38

2.9. On 02^nd August, 2023, the NMDFC released a new list of eligible candidates for the Joint CSIR-UGC NET fellowship under the MANF Scheme. However, through communication dated 05^th September, 2023, NMDFC informed the Petitioners’ respective universities that the MANF Scheme has been discontinued and the fellowship amounts released to the fellows was to be deposited back by them.

¶39

2.10. In such circumstances, the Petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking to revoke the order of discontinuation and to direct resumption of the benefits to the Petitioners.

¶40

CONTENTIONS OF PARTIES

¶41

In the background noted above, Mr. Pranzal Jha, counsel for Petitioners, contends that Respondents have failed to uphold the fundamental rights of Petitioners, who are bona fide PhD scholars and are suffering on account of denial of fellowship. He contends that the

¶42

Page 5 of 10

¶43

W.P.(C) 3552/2024

¶44

¶45

Respondents have arbitrarily disregarded the award letters dated 11^th May, 2022, which expressly provided for a fellowship tenure of five years, despite the Petitioners meeting all the eligibility criteria.

¶46

Conversely, counsel for Respondent No. 1 contends that a meeting held on 01^st June, 2023, revealed that UGC had erroneously declared the results for the MANF Scheme in June, 2021. It was noted that 108 candidates who were selected under the Scheme were, in fact, ineligible, as their family income exceeded INR 6.0 lakhs per annum due to a misapplication of the income criteria during the Joint CSIR-UGC NET Exam application process. Among these candidates, 17 had already enrolled on the Scholarship Fellowship Management Portal of Canara Bank, and an amount of INR 34,97,383/- has been disbursed. Consequently, it was decided that no further payments would be released to these candidates, and any amount already disbursed would be recoverable.

¶47

In response, counsel for the Petitioners points out that the reason for discontinuing the MANF Scheme, as stated by the Respondents in their affidavit, is both arbitrary and unjust, as it is founded on a misapplication of the eligibility criteria. He emphasizes that the Petitioners meet the requisite criteria, as the family income of all Petitioners is less than INR 6.0 lakhs per annum. He further apprises the Court that on 02^nd February 2024, the Ministry of Minority Affairs issued a notification regarding increase of the MANF amount having retrospective effect from 01^st January, 2023. In light of the said notification, Petitioners are entitled to enhanced stipends under the Scheme.

¶48

ANALYSIS

¶49

Page 6 of 10

¶50

W.P.(C) 3552/2024

¶51

¶52

The Court has carefully considered the facts and contentions of the parties. The Respondent’s decision rendering Petitioners ineligible is based on the criteria of family income. This controversy stems from the information provided by the Petitioners in response to a specific question in the application form, which created a discrepancy regarding their income. To better understand this issue, it is pertinent to refer to the relevant section of the application form for the Joint CSIR-UGC NET Exam, June 2021, where candidates were required to provide details of their annual income. The question is delineated below:

¶53

The application for the Joint CSIR-UGC NET Exam, June, 2021, required candidates to answer the question: “Whether the annual income from all sources of parents/guardians does not exceed Rs. 6.0 lakh.” The Petitioners argue that the framing of this question is unclear and confusing. Given the wording, a candidate whose family income is below INR 6.0 lakhs might reasonably interpret the question as asking if their income is above the specified amount. In such a case, answering “No” would signify that their income does not exceed INR 6.0 lakhs, aligning with the intent to confirm eligibility under the income limit. It is pointed out the discrepancy with respect to the family income of the Petitioners has occurred on account of the framing of the question pertaining to the details of the candidate’s family income.

¶54

Page 7 of 10

¶55

W.P.(C) 3552/2024

¶56

¶57

It is evident that the question was framed negatively, creating ambiguity in how the candidates should respond. The question, using the phrasing “does not exceed,” could have been interpreted in multiple ways. Ordinarily, for a negatively framed question, if the family income is less than or equal to INR 6.0 lakhs, the expected response should be “Yes,” agreeing with the statement that the income does not exceed the threshold. However, the Petitioners interpreted the question differently, believing that a “No” response would confirm that their family income was under INR 6.0 lakhs, as they understood the question to imply, “Is your family income above Rs. 6.0 lakh?” They answered “No,” indicating that it was not above the threshold. This ambiguity is further demonstrated by the fact that the question has since been rephrased in subsequent application forms for December, 2022 and June, 2023 to state: “Whether the annual income from all sources of your parents/guardians is equal to or less than Rs. 6 lakh.” The subsequent rephrasing implies that the original question lacked clarity and could easily be misinterpreted.

¶58

In the opinion of the Court, the Petitioners’ argument regarding the ambiguity of the question in the application form is persuasive. The question, which asked whether the family income “does not exceed Rs. 6.0 lakh,” is vague and open to different interpretations. The Petitioners, believing they were affirming their eligibility, responded in the negative, inadvertently causing a misunderstanding. It would be unjust to penalize the Petitioners for an error stemming from a poorly framed question, particularly when they otherwise meet the eligibility criteria of the application process.

¶59

Page 8 of 10

¶60

W.P.(C) 3552/2024

¶61

¶62

The principles of natural justice demands that an applicant should not be deprived of a benefit without being given an opportunity to explain any perceived discrepancies. In the present case, the Respondents failed to provide such an opportunity to the Petitioners to clarify their response, thereby violating the principles of fairness and procedural propriety. Moreover, the application process for the MANF Scheme already required candidates to submit an Income Certificate, certifying that the family income does not exceed INR 6.0 lakhs per annum. This documentary evidence should have been the primary basis for determining eligibility, not an ambiguous response on the form. The Respondents had the means to verify the Petitioners’ income independently through this Certificate, which substantiates that the Petitioners fulfilled the income criteria.

¶63

The arbitrary discontinuation of the fellowship based solely on the ambiguity of the application form, without giving the Petitioners a chance to explain or correct their response, is contrary to the objective of the MANF Scheme, which aims to support financially disadvantaged minority students. Given that the Petitioners belong to the minority community and satisfy the income criteria, the Respondents’ actions undermine the very purpose of the Scheme. The Court, therefore, finds that the termination of the fellowships is not only arbitrary but also contrary to the principles of fairness, equity, and natural justice.

¶64

Accordingly, the present petition is allowed with following directions: a) The communication of revocation issued by NMDFC dated 05^th September, 2023 in respect of all the Petitioners is set aside. b) Respondents are directed examine the documents submitted by

¶65

Page 9 of 10

¶66

W.P.(C) 3552/2024

¶67

¶68

Petitioners, attached to the rejoinder affidavit, and to verify the family income of each Petitioner. Upon such verification, in case the family income is found to be less than INR 6.0 lakhs per annum, the said Petitioner shall be re-instated in the MANF Scheme for the relevant academic year, in accordance with the applicable guidelines.

¶69

c) If, upon verification, the Petitioners are found eligible, they shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, including any enhancements granted during the intervening period. Any arrears due to the Petitioners shall be disbursed without undue delay.

¶70

d) Petitioner No. 5 is permitted to notify his University/Institution of this order. The University/Institution is directed to allow him to continue with his education until a fresh decision is made by the Respondents in compliance with this order.

¶71

With the above directions, the present petition along with pending applications, if any, is disposed of.

¶72

SANJEEV NARULA, J

¶73

SEPTEMBER 12, 2024 d.negi

¶74

Page 10 of 10

¶75

W.P.(C) 3552/2024

¶76

This is a digitally signed order.

¶77

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 17/09/2024 at 12:08:08

Tamseel Fatma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tamseel Fatma & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

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

Shri Rajpal Vs Adm (Notification) & Anr.

Dilip Jha Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi and Ors.

Rina Ghoshal Vs the State Trading Corporation of India Limited

Sh Ravinder Singh & Anr. Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi

Sanjeev Kaushik Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Ausil Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India & Ors.

M/S M.D. Overseas Private Limited Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Vs Union of India & Ors.

Ram Kishan Vs the State, Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi & Anr.

Dr S M Bali Vs Union of India and Ors.

Okinawa Autotech Internationall Private Limited & Anr. Vs Union of India

Dinmani Sharma Vs Principal District and Sessions Judge & Ors.

Dr. Tarun Kothari Vs District Magistrate / District Appropriate Authority (West),Pc & Pndt Act, Gnct of Delhi

Khwaja Naqebullaha Vs District Magistrate of South -East Delhi & Ors.