Petitioner sought inclusion in the Minority Scholarship list due to software error excluding eligible candidates. Court dismissed relief but directed the Ministry of Minority Affairs to decide the claim within 3 months.
Petitioner claim not granted but directed to be decided by first respondent within 3 months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC
WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2011 / 20TH ASWINA 1933 WP(C).No. 8461 of 2010(G) -------------------------
PETITIONER(S): ---------------
NIKHIL JOHNSON, VELLAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PATTUPARA, KURAVILANGAD P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT-686633.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW
RESPONDENT(S): ---------------
1. THE DIRECTOR MINISTRY OF MINORITY AFFAIRS, 11TH FLOOR PARYAVARAN BHAVAN, G.G.O.COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD,NEW DELHI-110003.
2. THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3. THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THE DIRECTORATE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4. THE SPECIAL OFFICER FOR SCHOLARSHIP, DEPARTMENT OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION, SANSKRIT COLLEGE, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
ADV. SMT.LALY VINCENT, CGC FOR R1 GOVT.PLEADER SRI.SHYSON.P.MANGUZHA
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SU
W.P.C.NO.8461/2010
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:
/TRUE COPY/
P.A. TO JUDGE
SU
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
W.P.(C) No. 8461 OF 2010
Dated this the 12th day of October, 2011
J U D G M E N T
When the writ petition was filed the petitioner has already completed his plus two course with 93.2% of marks and had joined for B.Tech Engineering course at Amaljyothi College of Engineering at Kanjirapally. In this writ petition his claim is for scholarship which is provided by the first respondent for students belonging to minority communities and his claim is that on account of the mistake committed by the 2nd respondent he lost the benefit of the above said scholarship.
“Recently, it has come to notice that names of some students who promptly applied for the scholarship and were eligible to get the same on
W.P.(C) No. 8461 OF 2010
:2 :
account of higher percentage of marks in the qualifying examination did not appear in the select list, though students with lesser percentage of marks were selected. On receiving certain complaints in this respect, the applications received in the concerned section were subjected to further verification. It is then seen that all the valid applications received by the section were entered in the Software Programme. But, in the list got generated from the software, a lot of names are found missing, despite the higher percentage of marks obtained by them and satisfying other selection criteria stipulated for the scheme. It seems that this has happened due to certain bugs in the programme.”
W.P.(C) No. 8461 OF 2010
:3 :
fact that the mistake has been committed and
recommendations for inclusion of additional students from additional list was also made as stated thus:
“During the year 2008-2009, Government of India has released the full quota(i.e.1469 Nos.) of Merit Cum Means Fresh Scholarship to the State of Kerala. But, recently it was seen that among the above 1469 students, names of 55(fifty five) students have been repeated in the list(since they have submitted two applications each and both entered in the MCM Software). As such, actual beneficiaries of the Scholarship(Fresh) during 2008-2009 was 1414. In the sanctioned amount also an amount of Rs.14,19,345/- is in excess in respect of these 55 duplicate names.”
W.P.(C) No. 8461 OF 2010
:4 :
“However, the State Government of Kerala, Directorate of Collegiate Education submitted the additional requirement of 106 fresh scholarship for the year 2008-09 in June 2009 only i.e. during the current Financial Year. Nevertheless the proposal was examined in this Ministry and with the approval of the Competent Authority the State Government, Directorate of Collegiate Education was asked vide our letter of even no. dated 03/08/2009 to clarify/confirm the points raised therein
W.P.(C) No. 8461 OF 2010
:5 :
at paras-2,3 and 4 of the letter. In the absence of any clarification/confirmation forthcoming from the state Government, Directorate of Collegiate Education, the proposal for additional requirement was not considered by this Ministry. In the meantime this Ministry has already released funds for 1469 fresh scholarship for the year 2009-2010 and have also considered an additional proposal for 120 fresh scholarships for the year 2009-2010 in respect of your state.”
petition was filed seeking a direction to the respondents to rectify the mistakes in the selection of students for the Merit Cum Means Scholarship given by the first respondent for the year 2008-2009 and include the name of the petitioner also in the selection list among the beneficiaries.
W.P.(C) No. 8461 OF 2010 :6 :
counter affidavit filed, admitted that a mistake has been committed and it is extracted as follows.
“Unfortunately the names of 107 students are excluded in the list. They are eligible to get the scholarship on account of the higher percentage of marks in the qualifying examinations and ought to have been included in the list. At the same time the students with lower percentage marks were selected. It seems that this has happened due to certain bugs in the programme.”
dated 8.1.2010 a copy of which is produced as Ext.R2(b), they have given recommendations to the Government of
W.P.(C) No. 8461 OF 2010 :7 :
India to take favourable decision on the claim of the petitioner. It is further stated that despite having the recommendations in Ext.R2(b) the first respondent has not taken a decision in the matter and it was therefore that benefit could not be disbursed to the petitioner.
Therefore I dispose of the writ petition directing the first respondent to take a decision on the claim of the petitioner as expeditiously as possible at any rate within 3 months of production of a copy of this judgment along with a copy of this writ petition.
Sd/- ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE
ul/[true copy]
P.S. to Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should direct the recipient of minority scholarships to decide the petitioner's claim for inclusion in the beneficiary list due to software error.
Whether the first respondent could be directed to expedite the decision on the petitioner's pending claim for scholarship rectification.
NIKHIL JOHNSON
THE DIRECTOR MINISTRY OF MINORITY AFFAIRS
THE DIRECTOR OF COLLEGIATE EDUCATION KERALA
THE DIRECTOR OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION
THE SPECIAL OFFICER FOR SCHOLARSHIP
ANTONY DOMINIC
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
