Allowed¶19

Rupa Saket v. University Grants Commission & Anr.

Delhi HC20 Mar 2026W.P.(C)/1609/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.P.(C) 1609/2014, CM APPL. 3357/2014 & CM APPL. 6377/2015; High Court of Delhi; Jasmeet Singh, J.; order dated 20.03.2026; petitioner Rupa Saket v. University Grants Commission; Rajiv Gandhi National Fellowship (RGNF) for SC/ST candidates 2012-13; selection list Annexure P-2; minimum cut-off 83.31%; merit-based selection; test of objectivity; male/female equal distribution (917 female vs 1083 male); laches and acquiescence; U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh (2006) 11 SCC 464; Article 226 Constitution of India; fellowship granted in title only subject to eligibility.

What did the court decide?

Grant of the Rajiv Gandhi National Fellowship for SC & ST candidate for the year 2012 to the petitioner with respect to the title only, conditional on her meeting all other eligibility criteria; petition disposed of in these terms. ¶19

Rupa Saket Vs University Grants Commission & Anr. — Writ and Judicial Review | Delhi HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner was wrongly denied the Rajiv Gandhi National Fellowship (SC category) for 2012-13 despite securing higher marks and a higher division than a selected candidate, i.e., whether the selection satisfied the merit/objectivity standard. +2 more

¶12

Court's answer

Award of the scholarship to a candidate with 718/1200 in the second division while denying the petitioner (1096/1450, first division) fails the test of objectivity; per the UGC minutes, selection was to be made strictly on the merit of the postgraduate examination results.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The contention that fellowships were equally distributed between male and female candidates is unfounded; Annexure P-2 shows 917 female awardees against 1083 male awardees.

¶14

Key takeaways

The petitioner has made out a case for her entitlement to the Rajiv Gandhi National Fellowship for SC/ST candidates for the year 2012-13.ratio¶15
More than 14 years having elapsed, the financial assistance may no longer serve its intended purpose; however, conferment of the fellowship by UGC carries significant academic value and may aid the petitioner in securing further academic opportunities. This reasoning underlies the limitation of relief to the title alone.ratio¶15
Applying U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh (2006) 11 SCC 464 on laches/acquiescence, since no other candidate approached the Court, the other candidates are deemed to have acquiesced in the list prepared by respondent no. 1; accordingly the objection that relief would be unfair to candidates in the 75-83% band does not merit consideration.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Delhi High Court (Jasmeet Singh, J., order dated 20.03.2026) allowed a writ petition under Article 226 by Rupa Saket challenging the UGC's selection list (Annexure P-2) for the Rajiv Gandhi National Fellowship for SC/ST candidates, 2012-13, from which she was omitted despite scoring 1096/1450 (first division) in M.Sc. (Botany), while a candidate with 718/1200 (second division) was selected; UGC contended she missed the 83.31% cut-off. Holding that awards were to be made strictly on postgraduate-examination merit, the court found the selection failed the test of objectivity and that UGC's claim of equal male-female distribution was unfounded (917 female vs 1083 male awardees per Annexure P-2). Rejecting the objection that relief would spawn claims from candidates in the 75-83% band, the court, applying U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh (2006) 11 SCC 464 on laches/acquiescence, held that no other candidate had approached the Court and the rest were deemed to have acquiesced in the list. Petition allowed: if the petitioner meets all other eligibility criteria, the RGNF for 2012 is to be granted to her in respect of title only, monetary assistance after 14 years being unlikely to serve its purpose though the fellowship's academic value endures.

¶1

$~94

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶3

- W.P.(C) 1609/2014, CM APPL. 3357/2014 & CM APPL. 6377/2015

¶4

RUPA SAKET .....Petitioner

¶5

Through: Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Mr. Ajit Kumar Ekka, Mr. R.S.M. Kalky, Mr. S.P. Singh, Mr. Ravi Shankar Singh, Advs.

¶6

versus

¶7

UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha and Mr Vishal Agarwal, Advs.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

¶10

O R D E R % 20.03.2026

¶11

This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:-

¶12

“(a) Summon the original records of the case;

¶13

(b) Pass an appropriate order, direction, or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing of list of selected candidates belonging to SC category for award of fellowship for the year 2012-13, under the scheme of Rajiv Gandhi National Fellowship for SC/ST candidates [ANNEXURE P-2] issued by the Respondents, in the interest of justice and;

¶14

(c) Pass an appropriate order direction or writ in nature of

¶15

This is a digitally signed order.

¶16

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 27/03/2026 at 13:41:13

¶17

mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to place the name of the petitioner in the merit list and the petitioner be awarded RGNF from the date of registration of the petitioner in M.Phil. course and the name of the petitioner be placed above the candidates who are ineligible/ lesser meritorious as per the RGNF scheme, in the interest of justice;

¶18

(d) Pass such other further order(s), as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice.”

¶19

In the present case, the facts are that the petitioner completed her M.Sc. (Botany) from Dr. Awadhesh Pratap Singh University, Rewa (MP) with first division having 75% marks. Her mark sheet is reproduced below:-

¶20

This is a digitally signed order.

¶21

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 27/03/2026 at 13:41:13

¶22

This is a digitally signed order.

¶23

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 27/03/2026 at 13:41:13

¶24

Thereafter, petitioner applied for M.Phil registration in subject of Botany with the University of Delhi and was selected for the same. In December, 2012, the petitioner applied for Rajiv Gandhi National Fellowship of SC & ST for the year 2012-13 vide application of December, 2012.

¶25

The respondent no.1/UGC declared the selection list, wherein the name of the petitioner was not present but the petitioner was surprised to note that candidates with less merit and candidates who were otherwise not el i gible were granted the scholarship.

¶26

The petitioner thereafter filed the present petition.

¶27

Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the UGC draws my attention to the minutes of the meeting dated 15.01.2023 & 16.01.2023, wherein para 3, 4, 5 and 6, read as under:-

¶28

“3. Stream-wise/Subject-wise distribution of fellowship was made strictly in accordance with the communication received from Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment vide their D.O.No.11027/02/2007-SCD-V dated April 19, 2011. The slots so distributed were equally divided between Male and Female categories.

¶29

4. The distribution of fellowships across States and subject streams are given in Annexure-I. In such cases where there were not enough applicants in a subject stream/Gender category, the available slots were allotted to other subject stream/Gender within the same State Surplus slots remained unallotted in different states due to non-availability of applicants in that state. The decision with regard to their redistribution of surplus in each state was taken in proportion to

¶30

This is a digitally signed order.

¶31

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 27/03/2026 at 13:41:13

¶32

left out applicants by the Committee. In order to make equal distribution among male and female candidates, out of surplus fellowships were awarded to female category.

¶33

5. There were a total of 115 applications received from PH candidates against 60 seats reserved for them. 44 PH candidates were selected on merit basis.

¶34

6. Selection of the candidates for the award of fellowship was taken strictly on the basis of the merit of the examination results of the Postgraduate examination of the applicants. The most meritorious students of different subjects were selected to give wide representation of disciplines within the broad subject streams. The list of candidates so selected and recommended for the award of RGNF for the year 2012-13 for the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes categories of applicants is given at Annexure-II.”

¶35

Thereafter, he draws my attention to the list of the fellowship and more particularly to serial no. 18 which reads as under:-

¶36

This is a digitally signed order.

¶37

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 27/03/2026 at 13:41:13

¶38

This is a digitally signed order.

¶39

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 27/03/2026 at 13:41:13

¶40

He states that the petitioner did not meet the minimum cut off of 83.31% and hence was not considered for the scholarship.

¶41

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶42

In the present case, as per the minutes of meeting, the scholarships were equally divided between male and female candidates. Additionally, as per para 4 surplus fellowship were to be awarded to female category. 11. However, a perusal of mark sheet of one Mr. Rajendra Prasad Bharti, reads as under:-

¶43

This is a digitally signed order.

¶44

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 27/03/2026 at 13:41:13

¶45

This is a digitally signed order.

¶46

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 27/03/2026 at 13:41:13

¶47

Despite securing 718 marks out of 1200 and placed in the second division in Botany Mr. Bharti was awarded the scholarship. In contrast, the petitioner, who secured 1096 marks out of 1450 and achieved a first division, was denied the scholarship.

¶48

This outcome fails to satisfy the test of objectivity. As per the minutes of the meeting, scholarships are to be distributed in accordance with the merit of candidates. The petitioner, being more meritorious, ought not to have been overlooked in favour of a candidate with lower marks and a lower division.

¶49

The contention regarding equal distribution between male and female candidates also appears to be unfounded. As per the Annexure P-2, 917 female candidates were awarded scholarships as against 1083 male candidates.

¶50

In view of the above, the petitioner has made out a case for her entitlement to the Rajiv Gandhi National Fellowship for SC/ST candidates for the year 2012–13. That being said, it is also noted that the primary objective of the fellowship was to provide financial assistance to support a candidate’s education. Given that more than 14 years have elapsed, the financial assistance may no longer serve its intended purpose. However, the conferment of the fellowship by UGC carries significant academic value and may aid the petitioner in securing further and better academic opportunities and benefits.

¶51

Mr. Sinha, learned counsel also argues that in case the petitioner even is given the scholarship there would be a lot of candidates having percentage between 75 and 83 and it would be unfair to the petitioner to be granted the

¶52

This is a digitally signed order.

¶53

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 27/03/2026 at 13:41:13

¶54

relief.

¶55

The same does not merit consideration in view of the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh, (2006) 11 SCC 464 more particularly in paragraphs 12 and 13 which read as under:-

¶56

“12. The statement of law has also been summarised in Halsbury's Laws of England, para 911, p. 395 as follows: “In determining whether there has been such delay as to amount to laches, the chief points to be considered are:

¶57

(i) acquiescence on the claimant's part; and

¶58

(ii) any change of position that has occurred on the defendant's part.

¶59

Acquiescence in this sense does not mean standing by while the violation of a right is in progress, but assent after the violation has been completed and the claimant has become aware of it. It is unjust to give the claimant a remedy where, by his conduct, he has done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it; or where by his conduct and neglect, though not waiving the remedy, he has put the other party in a position in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted. In such cases lapse of time and delay are most material. Upon these considerations rests the doctrine of laches.”

¶60

13. In view of the statement of law as summarised above, the respondents are guilty since the respondents have acquiesced in accepting the retirement and did not challenge the same in time.

¶61

This is a digitally signed order.

¶62

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 27/03/2026 at 13:41:13

¶63

If they would have been vigilant enough, they could have filed writ petitions as others did in the matter. Therefore, whenever it appears that the claimants lost time or whiled it away and did not rise to the occasion in time for filing the writ petitions, then in such cases, the court should be very slow in granting the relief to the incumbent. Secondly, it has also to be taken into consideration the question of acquiescence or waiver on the part of the incumbent whether other parties are going to be prejudiced if the relief is granted. In the present case, if the respondents would have challenged their retirement being violative of the provisions of the Act, perhaps the Nigam could have taken appropriate steps to raise funds so as to meet the liability but by not asserting their rights the respondents have allowed time to pass and after a lapse of couple of years, they have filed writ petitions claiming the benefit for two years. That will definitely require the Nigam to raise funds which is going to have serious financial repercussions on the financial management of the Nigam. Why should the court come to the rescue of such persons when they themselves are guilty of waiver and acquiescence?”

¶64

(Emphasis added)

¶65

No other candidate has come before the Court urging his/her rights and hence it can be said that the other candidates have deemed to acquiesce the list prepared by the respondent no. 1. 19. For the said reasons, the petition is allowed. In case the petitioner meets all other eligibility criteria, the petitioner shall be granted Rajiv

¶66

This is a digitally signed order.

¶67

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 27/03/2026 at 13:41:13

¶68

Gandhi National Fellowship for SC & ST candidate for the year 2012 only with respect to the title.

¶69

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

¶70

JASMEET SINGH, J

¶71

MARCH 20, 2026/NG

¶72

This is a digitally signed order.

¶73

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 27/03/2026 at 13:41:13

Rupa Saket v. University Grants Commission & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rupa Saket v. University Grants Commission & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Staff Selection Commission and Anr. Vs Mandeep

Chandra Farms and Nursery Vs Govt of NCT of Delhi

G. S. Sodhi Vs NTPC Ltd. and Anr.

Suman Anand Vs Punjab National Bank (Obc)

Shilpy International Vs Commissioner of Vat & Anr.

Shri Digamber Jain Mahila Ashram Vs Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Ors.

Pepsico India Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi

Negina Noori and Anr. Vs Union of India

Shri Satiram Private Iti Vs Directorate General of Training

Shri Sidh Shani Dham Welfare Association Vs Delhi Development Authority & Ors.

Sh. Ram Phal and Ors. Vs Delhi Development Authority and Ors.

Satish Chander and Ors. Vs Government of NCT Delhi and Ors.

Vidyawati Chaturvedi Shiksha Mahavidyalaya Vs National Council for Teacher Education and Ors.

Kv Educational Institute Vs National Council for Teacher Education & Anr.