Sujay Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary, Samaj Kalyan, Lucknow & Ors. which

Petitioner :- Sujay Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Samaj Kalyan Civil Sectt. Lko And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anagh Shukla,Atul Kumar Dwivedi Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Heard Mr. Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 4 and Mr. Anagh Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party no.5.

2. Response from opposite party no.6 i.e. the college concerned has been submitted by means of a report dated 27.08.2024 which had earlier been taken on record.

3. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 10.05.2024 whereby representation preferred by petitioner for scholarship for the Academic Sessions 2023-2024 for the four year Degree Course of Bachelor of Technology (Information Technology) from the college concerned has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that earlier petitioner had applied online for the aforesaid scholarship which was rejected on the ground that there was a mismatch in counseling details entered by the student and Institution. The petitioner therefore filed Writ- C No.3302 of 2024; Sujay Srivastava versus State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary, Samaj Kalyan, Lucknow & Ors. which was disposed of vide order dated 10.04.2024 directing the authorities concerned to consider and decide petitioner's representation. It is in pursuance thereof that the impugned order has been passed.

5. It is submitted that even as per the counter afÏdavit, it is admitted that initially there were certain discrepancies in details uploaded by petitioner and those uploaded by college concerned but the discrepancy was thereafter removed by the petitioner as well as by the college concerned but by means of impugned order, scholarship has been rejected on the ground that verification of hard copy was not submitted by the college concerned within the time prescribed.

6. It is submitted that as per report submitted by college concerned before this court, discrepancies were removed within the time prescribed. It is submitted that the purpose of grant of scholarship being beneficial in nature, such technicalities should have been ignored by authority.

7. Learned State counsel on the basis of counter afÏdavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that in the present case although the petitioner rectified errors in his application, a complete hard copy of the application along with attachment was required to be submitted to the educational institution by petitioner which was then required to verify the document received and to forward with aforesaid application. It is submitted that in the present case, the institution did not verify or enter the counseling details online which corresponded to the student's application. He has also adverted to Government Order dated 28.09.2023 to submit that application was rejected according to rules since the correct details were not uploaded or provided to the authorities within the time prescribed.

8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that provision and procedure for grant of scholarship to general category candidates has been notified on 28.09.2023 as per the Uttar Pradesh Samanya Verg Dasmottar Chhatraviratti Yojna (Nawam Sansodhan) Niymawali-2023 which indicates procedure for grant of scholarship.

9. It is admitted between the parties that there were certain discrepancies in the initial application made by petitioner due to which it was rejected on the ground of a mismatch in counseling details entered by student and institution.

10. In the counter afÏdavit, the District Social Welfare OfÏcer, Bareilly has admitted the fact that the errors in application submitted by petitioner were removed by him but the hard copy of application along with attachments were not verified by the institution concerned within the stipulated time period. The counter afÏdavit indicates that blame for rejection of petitioner's application for scholarship rests with the institution. Paragraph 9 of counter afÏdavit indicates that the data could have been submitted through a messenger since the institution's ofÏce is only 20 Kilometers away.

11. From a perusal of the regulation, it is evident that provision for grant of scholarship is beneficial in nature for providing such scholarship to those general category candidates who primarily are from the economically weaker sections. The nature of such a regulation therefore is clearly beneficial.

12. In the present case, it is evident and admitted in the counter afÏdavit that the petitioner has removed all the discrepancies at his end and also submitted hard copy of the application along with the relevant attachments. The dispute appears to be only between the social welfare department and the institution concerned who have laid blame on each other.

13. In its report submitted by institution concerned, it has been stated that all necessary acts in furtherance of petitioner's application and removal of discrepancies were done within the time stipulated with such report being submitted in the ofÏce of social welfare ofÏcer within the time prescribed.

14. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the scheme under which petitioner has applied is beneficial in nature and there is no fault at the end of petitioner, such inter departmental problems are required to be sorted out by such a department themselves for which the petitioner cannot be held to be at fault. The beneficial provisions are required to be given maximum weightage so that the basic purpose of such a scheme is not scuttled.

15. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances and particularly the fact that there is no fault at the end of petitioner, the following directions are being issued :- (i) The opposite party no.3 i.e. District Samaj Kalyan Adhikari, Bareilly is directed to communicate with the opposite party no.6 i.e. Sri Rammurti Smarak College of Engineering & Technology, Bareilly through its Registrar within a period of 10 days from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the District Social Welfare OfÏcer indicating any discrepancies which are yet to be removed by the institution. Upon receipt of such a communication, the college concerned is required to remove such a discrepancy either on in an online mode or even in an ofÒine mode (which shall be permitted by the District Social Welfare OfÏcer) within a period of two weeks thereafter. (ii) The opposite party no.2 i.e. Director, Samaj Kalyan, 3- Prayag Narain Road, Kalyan Bhawan, Lucknow is thereafter directed to consider petitioner's application for grant of scholarship for the course and academic year concerned within a period of three weeks thereafter. (iii) In case of any difÏculty or discrepancy, petitioner shall also be informed pertaining to same by the District Social Welfare OfÏcer within the aforesaid time prescribed.

16. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order dated 10.05.2024 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari in the light of observations and directions made herein above.

17. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 12.2.2025 Subodh/- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Petitioner :- Sujay Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Samaj Kalyan Civil Sectt. Lko And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Anagh Shukla,Atul Kumar Dwivedi Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Heard Mr. Anurag Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite parties no.1 to 4 and Mr. Anagh Shukla, learned counsel for opposite party no.5.

2. Response from opposite party no.6 i.e. the college concerned has been submitted by means of a report dated 27.08.2024 which had earlier been taken on record.

3. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 10.05.2024 whereby representation preferred by petitioner for scholarship for the Academic Sessions 2023-2024 for the four year Degree Course of Bachelor of Technology (Information Technology) from the college concerned has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that earlier petitioner had applied online for the aforesaid scholarship which was rejected on the ground that there was a mismatch in counseling details entered by the student and Institution. The petitioner therefore filed Writ- C No.3302 of 2024; Sujay Srivastava versus State of U.P. Thru. Principal Secretary, Samaj Kalyan, Lucknow & Ors. which was disposed of vide order dated 10.04.2024 directing the authorities concerned to consider and decide petitioner's representation. It is in pursuance thereof that the impugned order has been passed.

5. It is submitted that even as per the counter afÏdavit, it is admitted that initially there were certain discrepancies in details uploaded by petitioner and those uploaded by college concerned but the discrepancy was thereafter removed by the petitioner as well as by the college concerned but by means of impugned order, scholarship has been rejected on the ground that verification of hard copy was not submitted by the college concerned within the time prescribed.

6. It is submitted that as per report submitted by college concerned before this court, discrepancies were removed within the time prescribed. It is submitted that the purpose of grant of scholarship being beneficial in nature, such technicalities should have been ignored by authority.

7. Learned State counsel on the basis of counter afÏdavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that in the present case although the petitioner rectified errors in his application, a complete hard copy of the application along with attachment was required to be submitted to the educational institution by petitioner which was then required to verify the document received and to forward with aforesaid application. It is submitted that in the present case, the institution did not verify or enter the counseling details online which corresponded to the student's application. He has also adverted to Government Order dated 28.09.2023 to submit that application was rejected according to rules since the correct details were not uploaded or provided to the authorities within the time prescribed.

8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that provision and procedure for grant of scholarship to general category candidates has been notified on 28.09.2023 as per the Uttar Pradesh Samanya Verg Dasmottar Chhatraviratti Yojna (Nawam Sansodhan) Niymawali-2023 which indicates procedure for grant of scholarship.

9. It is admitted between the parties that there were certain discrepancies in the initial application made by petitioner due to which it was rejected on the ground of a mismatch in counseling details entered by student and institution.

10. In the counter afÏdavit, the District Social Welfare OfÏcer, Bareilly has admitted the fact that the errors in application submitted by petitioner were removed by him but the hard copy of application along with attachments were not verified by the institution concerned within the stipulated time period. The counter afÏdavit indicates that blame for rejection of petitioner's application for scholarship rests with the institution. Paragraph 9 of counter afÏdavit indicates that the data could have been submitted through a messenger since the institution's ofÏce is only 20 Kilometers away.

11. From a perusal of the regulation, it is evident that provision for grant of scholarship is beneficial in nature for providing such scholarship to those general category candidates who primarily are from the economically weaker sections. The nature of such a regulation therefore is clearly beneficial.

12. In the present case, it is evident and admitted in the counter afÏdavit that the petitioner has removed all the discrepancies at his end and also submitted hard copy of the application along with the relevant attachments. The dispute appears to be only between the social welfare department and the institution concerned who have laid blame on each other.

13. In its report submitted by institution concerned, it has been stated that all necessary acts in furtherance of petitioner's application and removal of discrepancies were done within the time stipulated with such report being submitted in the ofÏce of social welfare ofÏcer within the time prescribed.

14. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the scheme under which petitioner has applied is beneficial in nature and there is no fault at the end of petitioner, such inter departmental problems are required to be sorted out by such a department themselves for which the petitioner cannot be held to be at fault. The beneficial provisions are required to be given maximum weightage so that the basic purpose of such a scheme is not scuttled.

15. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances and particularly the fact that there is no fault at the end of petitioner, the following directions are being issued :- (i) The opposite party no.3 i.e. District Samaj Kalyan Adhikari, Bareilly is directed to communicate with the opposite party no.6 i.e. Sri Rammurti Smarak College of Engineering & Technology, Bareilly through its Registrar within a period of 10 days from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the District Social Welfare OfÏcer indicating any discrepancies which are yet to be removed by the institution. Upon receipt of such a communication, the college concerned is required to remove such a discrepancy either on in an online mode or even in an ofÒine mode (which shall be permitted by the District Social Welfare OfÏcer) within a period of two weeks thereafter. (ii) The opposite party no.2 i.e. Director, Samaj Kalyan, 3- Prayag Narain Road, Kalyan Bhawan, Lucknow is thereafter directed to consider petitioner's application for grant of scholarship for the course and academic year concerned within a period of three weeks thereafter. (iii) In case of any difÏculty or discrepancy, petitioner shall also be informed pertaining to same by the District Social Welfare OfÏcer within the aforesaid time prescribed.

16. In view of aforesaid, the impugned order dated 10.05.2024 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari in the light of observations and directions made herein above.

17. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost. Order Date :- 12.2.2025 Subodh/- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench