The court upheld the validity of the scholarship scheme's screening criteria, affirming that it does not violate Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, emphasizing the state's discretion in policy-making.

JUDGMENT :

(Per Nivedita P. Mehta, J.)

The petitioner by the present petition is seeking to quash and set aside letter/order no. MPGSS/01/2023/695, dated 12.09.2023 and the lists drawn up by the Director of Health Education including the list of candidates selected under Manohar Parrikar Goa, Scholars Scheme for the academic year 2022-2023. The petitioner further seeks issuance of directives required to be followed in accordance with the Screening Criteria laid down in Clause IX of the Scheme be held to be in contravention to Article 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India with other ancillary reliefs.

FACTS:

2. The instant petition has been filed by Ms. Amanda Andrea Menezes who is presently pursuing a PHD program in Medicinal Chemistry at the University of Toledo, Ohio, USA. Prior to enrolment in this program, the petitioner had attained a Bachelor’s degree in Pharmacy followed by a Master’s degree in Pharmacy in November 2021. Post-completion of her post-graduate degree program, she joined the Goa Chief Minister’s Fellowship Program in January 2022.

3. The petitioner had applied vide application registration number 2022230117 to respondent no. 3 for an award of scholarship under the Manohar Parrikar Goa Scholars Scheme 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “the scheme”) for the academic year 2022-2023, for the program she is presently enrolled in. Under the scheme, there is a screening process that conducts shortlisting of candidates in phases. After the publishing of the initial scrutiny list, the petitioner stood on serial number 142 out of 172.

4. Aggrieved by this tentative list, the petitioner on 28.04.2023 addressed an email to respondent no.3 seeking redressal as to why her application for doctoral studies was being placed in the same list as applications for pursuing post-graduate education. Respondent no.3 duly replied to her grievance and stated that there is no provision under the scheme to earmark seats separately for postgraduate and doctoral studies. Subsequently, on 05.05.2023, the applicant addressed another email to respondent no.3 stating that the shortlisting process in the scheme is devoid of intelligible differentia and violative of her fundamental rights under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

5. Subsequently, respondent no.3 published a list of top 60 applicants for the final selection interview on their website. The 60 shortlisted applicants were the same as the top 60 in the initial scrutiny list, therefore the petitioner was not in this list.

6. The petitioner submits that the screening criteria to shortlist applicants for benefits under the scheme are in contravention of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Indian Constitution, hence this petition.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES

7. It has been argued by Mr. Santimano learned counsel for the petitioner as under:

a) That such a criterion is arbitrary and devoid of reasonable classification. The criteria for shortlisting the candidate on a 100-point scale dictates that the curricular/academic achievements shall be assigned 100 marks, out of which, marks obtained in standard 10th accounts for 40% weightage, marks obtained in standard 12th accounts for 30% weightage, and, marks obtained in the graduation accounts for 30% weightage. It has been argued that such a screening process is prejudicial to the doctoral applicants being allowed an objective shortlisting process and a level-playing field. The screening process does not take into account marks obtained at the post-graduate level by applicants for doctoral courses.

b) The post-graduate applicants and doctoral applicants cannot be put in one basket as equals and therefore the scheme seeks to treat unequal’s, equally, which is violative of Article 14 and Article 16 of the Indian Constitution.

c) Reliance is placed on the following judgments:

a. U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. v. Ayodhya Prasad Mishra, 2008 10 SCC 139.

b. M.P. Rurual Agriculture Extension Officers Association v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2004 0 AIR (SC) 20