* 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODG) NO.1300 OF 2009 Shubhendra Ram Doiphode ....Petitioner. V/S. The Secretary, Social Welfare Department & Ors. ....Respondents -------- Mr.A.A.Siddiqui, adv.for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Joshi, AGP for respondent no.1. CORAM :- J.N.PATEL, & SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, JJ. DATED :- 7TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. 1. Rule returnable. By consent, heard counsel for the parties forthwith. 2. This petition is filed by a student seeking directions to the respondents to grant/sanction him scholarship for higher education in foreign countries for M.Sc Enterprise Computing, London South Bank University, for the course of one year. 3. On 24th July 2009, the respondents had submitted that they will re-consider the case of the petitioner and take a fresh decision in the matter within two weeks. Accordingly, the decision was taken on 10th August, 2009. By the decision, the respondents have denied the scholarship to the petitioner, solely on the ground that he has passed * 2 * his 12th standard examination from Education Board, which is from out of Maharashtra. The petitioner contends that the reason for rejection is contrary to the Government Resolution dated 11th June, 2003, revised on 5th August 2004 and 17th June 2006, that lays down Rules for Scheme of scholarship abroad for children of scheduled caste community. The decision is also alleged to be discriminatory since by the very decision the respondents have granted scholarship to a student who has passed his 12th standard from a Board which is not School Education Board of Maharashtra. 4. The petitioner passed his 10th standard examination in 2002 from Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education, Pune. Thereafter, he had taken admission in I.K.M. Inter College, Anapur, Allahabad affiliated to Board of High School & Intermediate Education, U.P and passed his 12th standard from that Board. Mr.Siddiqui, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that, since the petitioner has passed the 10th standard examination from the Board in Maharashtra, he is eligible for grant of scholarship and his application ought to have been considered on merit by the respondents. 5. Mr.Joshi, the learned Additional Government Pleader for the respondents, submits that the foreign scholarship Scheme can be availed of only by such students who have passed their 12th standard examination from one of the School Education Boards in the State of Maharashtra and not otherwise. According to him, though the petitioner has passed his tenth standard examination from the Board in Maharashtra, since he has taken his 12th standard examination from the * 3 * Board outside Maharashtra, he is not eligible for the scholarship under the Scheme. We have carefully gone through the Government Resolution dated 11th June 2003 revised on 5th August, 2004 and 17th June 2006 with the help of the counsel for the parties. Mr.Joshi, has not been able to point out any Rule stating that for a student to be eligible for the scholarship under the Scheme, he must have passed his 12th standard examination conducted by the School Education Board in Maharashtra. Undisputedly, the School Education Board conducts two examinations, the examination for the 10th standard and the examination for the 12th standard. In the absence of any specific Rule, it must be and it is held that passing of either of the examinations i.e. 10th standard or 12th standard examination from the School Education Board from the State of Maharashtra should be sufficient compliance of condition of eligibility. The petitioner, admittedly, satisfies all other conditions laid down by the Government Resolution. 6. We also find substance in the contention of the petitioner that the decision of the respondents is discriminatory. The respondents by their decision dated 10th August 2009 have granted scholarship to a student who has passed his 12th standard examination from Central Board of School Education, which is not School Education Board of Maharashtra. Therefore, the action of denial of scholarship to the petitioner would be discriminatory and arbitrary. Mr.Siddiqui, further points out that the revised Government Resolution does permit grant of scholarship to a student from other Education Boards. * 4 * Rule-16 as revised on 17th June 2006, increases the number of scholarships available to students per year and also permits consideration of the students from other Education Boards. 7. In the above facts and circumstances, the decision of the respondents refusing scholarship to the petitioner under the Scheme of scholarship abroad for children of scheduled caste community suffers from arbitrariness and discrimination. The respondents are therefore directed to consider the application of the petitioner on merit for grant of scholarship to him. Rule made absolute accordingly, with costs. (SMT.R.P.SONDURBALDOTA, J) (J.N.PATEL, J)