✦ High Court of India

High Court

Case Details

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:22663 Court No. - 32 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 23172 of 2016 Petitioner :- C/M Shree Sai College And Another Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gautam Baghel Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Legal Reasoning

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Gautam Baghel, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The petitioner by means of the present writ petition has assailed the order dated 21.12.2015 passed by the State Government by which claim of the petitioner for refund of fee for the Session 2013-14 has been rejected on the ground that application of petitioner was not uploaded on the Master Database. 3. Challenging the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that finding returned by the State Government that petitioner did not upload the application form on the Master Database is perverse and against the record inasmuch as it is evident from the record that petitioner had submitted the application in the office of District Magistrate, Saharanpur on 21.10.2013, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. It has further been submitted that it is evident from the letter of District Magistrate, Saharanpur dated 28.03.2016 obtained under Right to Information Act that application of the petitioner has been forwarded to the office of Chief Development Officer, Saharanpur on 18.11.2013.

Decision

4. It is further submitted that it was the duty of the District Magistrate to send the said application to the Commissioner instead of Chief Development Officer, and therefore, the fault is not on the part of the petitioner in not uploading the application on the Master Database. It is submitted that in such view of the fact, the impugned order is against the record and erroneous and cannot be sustained in law. 5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel would contend that it is the specific case of the respondents in the counter affidavit that petitioner did not upload the application on the Master Database within the time prescribed under the Regulation. Accordingly, it is submitted that application of the petitioner has rightly been rejected. 6. Be that as it may, the record reveals that the petitioner has submitted an application in the office of District Magistrate on 21.10.2013, copy of which is annexed as Annexure-7 to the writ petition. The information obtained under Right to Information Act from the office of District Magistrate on 28.03.2016 also reflects that the application of the petitioner has been forwarded by the office of District Magistrate to the Chief Development Officer under the Regulation (ii) appearing on page 35 against the heading ममसटर डमटमबबस व सससथमओस कम पसजजकरण ककसर ममसटर मम' prescribing the date ' within which the application has to be submitted, which is reproduced herein below:- ममनयतम पमप शशकण सससथमओस कब नमम व शववरण सममज कलयमण शवभमग दमरम शशकण मम तथम पमठकमम कब ससबसध मम ससचमललत शनधमरररत समय सजमम तक शमशमल हकनब पर हज ऐसज सससथमओस कब "(i) सससथमओस कब ससदभर मम ससचमललत ' ' ककसर ममसटर' मम छमतमओस कक छमतववलत / छमत/ शशलकपशतपपशतर दबय हकगज। ममसटर डमटम बबस' (ii). जनपद सतर पर शनधमरररत शतलथ तक शशकशणक सससथमओस कब नमम ममसटर डमटम बबस मम लजलमलधकमरज कक अनशमशत सब जकडब जम सकम गब। शनधमरररत शतलथ तक छप ट गयज सससथमओस कब समबनध मम उपयशक कमरण दशमरयब जमनब कक दशम मम लजलमलधकमरज कक सससतशशत पर एवस शनधमरररत शतलथ कब पशमतत नवजन ममनयतम पमप करनब वमलज सससथमओस कब नमम ममसटर डमटम बबस मम शनधमरररत शतलथ सब एक ममह कब अनदर मणडलमयशक कक अनशमशत सब जकडब जम सकम गब। इसकब पशमत डमटमबबस मम पशवशष कक अनशमशत दबनब कम अलधकमर कब वल शमसन कक हकगम। यह भज सशशनशशत शकयम जमयबगम शक ककई पमत ससथम छप टनब न पमयब तथम ककई गलत सससथम ममसटर डमठम बबस मम समममललत न हक सकब ।" 7. According to (ii) of the Regulation dated 08.01.2013, extracted above, the name of the institution in the Master Database can be added with the leave of the District Magistrate. If the same could not be added within the time prescribed, the same can be added with the leave of the Commissioner within a period of one month from the last date by which, the District Magistrate could upload the application on the Master Database. After expiry of one month, the application shall be uploaded with the permission of the Commissioner, and in case, the same could not be uploaded within one month with the leave of the Commissioner, the application could only be uploaded on the Master Database by the permission of the State Government. 8. The said Regulation also specifically provides that the authority must ensure that the name of eligible institution may not be left out from being uploaded on the Master Database, therefore, from the aforesaid Regulation, it is evident that the duty is cast upon the authority to ensure that the application of eligible institution for refund of scholarship should be uploaded on the Master Database. 9. In the instant case, it is evident from the record that the petitioner has submitted application on 21.10.2013 before the office of District Magistrate. The record further reflects that the District Magistrate has forwarded the application of the petitioner on 18.11.2013 to the Chief Development Officer, Saharanpur whereas he should have forwarded it to the Commissioner of the district. The fault is only of the District Magistrate in forwarding the said application of the petitioner to the Chief Development Officer. 10. In such view of the fact, the fault cannot be attributed to the petitioner in not uploading the application on the Master Database, therefore, the impugned order cannot be sustained in law and is accordingly, set aside. 11. The matter is remitted to the respondent no.2-District Social Welfare, U.P., Lucknow to decide the claim of the petitioner with respect to refund of scholarship for the Session 2013-14 expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order after giving due notice and opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties. 12. For the reasons given above, the writ petition is allowed with no order as to costs. Order Date :- 17.2.2025 Sattyarth Digitally signed by :- SATTYARTH ANAND High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

This is the original judgment text as indexed from the source corpus. Always verify against the official court record before relying on it in a filing — you can do so on eCourts or the Supreme Court of India website. ← Search more judgments