Civil Writ Petition No.4526 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4526 of 2010 Date of decision: 15.03.2011 Sumit Kumar ....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Ms. Sunita Nandal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. For encouraging meritorious Scheduled Castes and backward Classes students, the Government of Haryana has framed a policy named as Dr. Ambedkar Medhavi Chattar Yojna (Dr. Ambedkar Meritorious Student Scheme) making a provision for grant of scholarship of Rs.10,000/- per year for a duration of two years for such students. The petitioner is a Scheduled Caste candidate and had appeared in the Matriculation examination in August, 2005. He passed the examination in 1st division and with 63.3% marks. Thereafter, he had taken admission in 10+1 class in Vasih Senior Civil Writ Petition No.4526 of 2010 -2- Secondary School Bhiwani. The Principal of the School sent the case of the petitioner for grant of scholarship under the scheme noted above. The respondents sanctioned the scholarship amounting to Rs.10,000/- to the petitioner and payment issued through Bank Draft No.696460 dated 3.5.2006. The said draft, however, was not handed over to the petitioner on the ground that he had passed the matriculation examination in August, 2005, instead of March, 2005. Pleading that there is no condition of this nature, which would debar the petitioner to get this scholarship amount, the petitioner served a legal notice on 31.12.2007. After submitting a reminder, the petitioner approached this Court through CWP No.8484 of 2009. The said petition was disposed of with direction to the respondents to decide the legal notice served by the petitioner within a period of two months. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected by respondent No.2 on 22.9.2009, which the petitioner has now impugned through the present writ petition. The reasons to deny the scholarship to the petitioner is that he did not secure minimum required 60% marks in the first attempt though he had secured 63.3% marks in his second attempt. It is stated that if a student is able to get eligible percentage of marks after number of attempts, then the scheme itself shall loose its objectives and aim. It is urged that in this manner this will affect the claims of meritorious students, who secure merit in the first attempt as compared to those students, who would do so in their second attempt. Prima facie, the reason given may appear to be little Civil Writ Petition No.4526 of 2010 -3- attractive, but deeper analysis of the scheme, especially in the light of the purpose for which the scheme is framed, would reveal altogether different position. I have perused the scheme, which has been placed before me by the State counsel. The purpose of the scheme is not only to recognize the merit, but basically is to help those students who are financially weak and come from weaker section of the society. This would clearly emerge from the purpose of the scheme as noticed therein. In the purpose mentioned in the scheme, it is mentioned that education after matric has become very costly. It has, accordingly, become difficult for Schedule Castes and Backward Classes students to afford the expenses of education and thus, they are deprived of further education even if they deserve or want to study. Thus, the main purpose of the scheme is to encourage the meritorious students belonging to Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes to continue higher studies which they were seen discontinuing due to financial constraints. That being the purpose, scheme is clearly aimed at helping poor students, who are unable to bear the expenses of further studies after matriculation. Appropriately some criteria was to be provided and that perhaps would explain the reason why some minimum percentage of marks was prescribed to make the students eligible for grant of scholarship. Rs.10,000/- is not that huge amount, for which there would be a need to minutely examine the scheme. Yearly scholarship of Rs.10,000/- for 2 years is provided for. If the scheme is interpreted in this manner, it would discourage students to achieve higher goal and Civil Writ Petition No.4526 of 2010 -4- thus, they would be deprived of higher & further education. They would not strive for to obtain the minimum standard laid down in the scheme. The position can be examined from another angle. Suppose, if a student is unsuccessful in his examination for a particular year and then obtains sixty percent or higher marks next year, he would still be eligible for scholarship if he wishes to pursue his studies further. Would it then be fair to deny the benefit only because he has passed with the requisite marks in August rather than March. For such a person, further education would be equally costly if he wishes to study further. Such a student would also need to be encouraged for further pursuing his studies and would have better cause to get scholarship as he has shown well and determination to achieve standards and should not suffer for lack of finances. The reasons given by the respondents to deny the scholarship are apparently self invented and can not be made out from the scheme. Nothing in this regard is mentioned to make the petitioner disentitled on this ground. Accordingly, I find that the impugned order can not be termed as fair and thus, can not be sustained. The same is, accordingly, set aside. Direction is hereby issued to the respondents to pay the scholarship of Rs.10,000/- per year to the petitioner for a period of two years as per the scheme. The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. March 15, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE