Disposed

K.Lakshmanan v. The Ministry of Social Justice

Madras HC21 Dec 2021WP/30310/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenging Notifications prescribing NET eligibility for National Fellowship sought direction for a new scheme. Court avoided merits, directing petitioners to submit a representation for a new scheme within two weeks, to be considered after hearing.

What did the court decide?

Directed petitioners to make a representation to the Ministry for a new fellowship scheme within two weeks; Ministry to pass orders after hearing.

K.Lakshmanan Vs The Ministry of Social Justice — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Madras HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.12.2021

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI

¶4

Writ Petition No.30310 of 2019

¶5

K.Lakshmanan

¶6

A.Dhineshkumar 3. M.Marichamy ... Petitioners

¶7

vs.

¶8

The Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, represented by its Secretary, Room No.202, 2^nd Floor, C-Wing, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶9

University Grants Commission, rep. by its Secretary, (Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India), Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 002. ... Respondents

¶10

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the proceedings of the 1^st Respondent's new Regulations governing the Award of Fellowship in terms of Central Sector Scheme “National Fellowship” for providing Fellowship to Schedule Caste,Schedule Tribe Students to pursue M.Phil. and Ph.D. with effect from 01.04.2018 of the first Respondent vide Notification dated 01.04.2018 bearing File No.11022/02/2017-SCD-V and the consequential Notification issued by the Nodal Agency, the 2^nd Respondent in implementing the aforesaid regulation of the first respondent in terms of the Notification dated 17.09.2019 bearing File No.82-1/2018(SA-III) insofar as it relates to prescribing eligibility for grant of Fellowship by NET selection process and quash the same and thereon direct the 1^st Respondent to select the students for fellowship under the old stream of advertising the Fellowship Scheme in the online portal, granting the Petitioners the benefits of the aforesaid Fellowship Scheme.

¶11

For Petitioners : Mr.K.Venkateswaran For 1^st Respondent : Mr.A.Murugan For 2^nd Respondent : Ms.Sudha Rani, Standing Counsel

¶12

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶13

O R D E R

¶14

Petitioners, who are pursuing Ph.D. Course in the respective subjects, have come up with the present Writ Petition challenging the Notification dated 01.04.2018 issued by the 1^st Respondent and the consequential Notification issued by the 2^nd Respondent in implementing the Regulation of the 1^st Respondent in terms of the Notification dated 17.09.2019, insofar as it relates to prescribing eligibility for grant of Fellowship by NET selection process and for a consequential direction to the 1^st Respondent to select the students for fellowship under the old stream of advertising the Fellowship Scheme in the online portal, thereby granting the the benefits of the aforesaid Fellowship Scheme.

¶15

Learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that, the 2^nd Respondent herein, being the Nodal Agency of the 1^st Respondent in terms of the aforesaid New Scheme, had resorted to pass a Notification dated 17.09.2019, imposing Eligibility Test only to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe Community students and the same amounts to apparent discrimination and it is unsustainable in law. However, learned counsel for the Petitioners fairly submitted that, without interfering with the Notifications impugned in this Writ Petition, this Court may permit the Petitioners to make a representation to the 1^st Respondent for introduction of a new Scheme for providing Fellowship to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe students and the same may be directed to be considered within a stipulated time.

¶16

Learned counsel appearing for the 1^st Respondent submitted that, if any such representation is made by the Petitioners to the 1^st Respondent, the same will be considered as per the Regulations of the 1^st Respondent.

¶17

As the relief sought in this Writ Petition is limited to the extent expressed by the learned counsel for the Petitioners, without going into the merits of the case and without interfering with the Notifications impugned in this Writ Petition, this Court directs the Petitioners to make a representation to the 1^st Respondent for introduction of a new Scheme for providing Fellowship to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe students within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and on receipt of the same, the 1^st Respondent shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, as expeditiously as possible.

¶18

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

¶19

The Writ Petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected W.M.P.Nos.30303 to 30306 of 2019 are closed.

¶20

Sd/-

¶21

Assistant Registrar(CS)

¶22

//True Copy//

¶23

Sub Assistant Registrar

¶24

(aeb)

¶25

To:

¶26

The Secretary, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Room No.202, 2^nd Floor, C-Wing, Sasthri Bhavan, New Delhi – 110 001.

¶27

The Secretary, University Grants Commission, (Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India), Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi – 110 002.

¶28

+1 cc to Mr.A.Murugan, Advocate Sr.NO. 68961

¶29

W.P.No.30310 of 2019

¶30

RLD(CO) A.SK(19.01.2022)

¶31

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

K.Lakshmanan v. The Ministry of Social Justice

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

K.Lakshmanan v. The Ministry of Social Justice

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

S.M.Manickam Vs the chairman

P.Abel, Vs The Collector

S.Sabarivasan Vs The Principal

M/s.Vinoth Properties Vs The Assistant Engineer

The Thyagaraya Nagar Ladies Club, Vs The Principal Secretary to Government

G.Gnanaskandhan Vs State Rep.by