IMPORTANT POINT
A candidate selected under a scholarship scheme is entitled to benefits as per the scheme in effect at the time of application, regardless of subsequent amendments that may alter eligibility criteria.

JUDGMENT :

Dinesh Mehta, J.

1. Instant case is an egregious example of typical mindset of the executives or the State officials, who project and propagate the benefits being offered to the public from one hand and use their pen in the other hand to ensure that those benefits do not reach them.

2. This Court is constrained to observe so, having confronted with the startling facts of this case, wherein a bright student having completed his graduation - B.A. LLB (Hons.) from National Law School, Bangalore went to Cambridge (U.K.) for his post graduation and now he has to approach this Court to prove his point, rather than to vindicate his stand.

3. Having vied for admission in Post Graduation Course in the prestigious Cambridge University, UK, the petitioner was fortunate to get admission. It may not be out of place to mention that considering his merit, the Cambridge University exempted his tuition fee and accordingly, he was supposed to bear other expenses only and not the tuition fee.

4. The petitioner received offer letter for admission from Cambridge University, U.K. on 19.08.2021 and went to UK on 22.09.2021, whereafter his course commenced on 01.10.2021.

5. In the meantime, the petitioner came to know that the State of Rajasthan has promulgated a scheme known as Rajiv Gandhi Scholarship for Academic Excellence (hereinafter referred to as ‘RGS Scheme’), under which, the meritorious students have been offered scholarship for higher education abroad.

6. The petitioner applied for scholarship under the RGS Scheme on 03.11.2021 claiming a sum of Rs. 12,68,267/-.

7. Processing petitioner’s application on 19.04.2022, the State disbursed a sum of Rs.64,232/- in petitioner’s account by way of NEFT, while he was studying in Cambridge University.

8. The petitioner completed his post graduation course on 28.06.2022 and came back to India and started pursuing his career as a lawyer in New Delhi.

9. After returning from U.K., the petitioner contacted and wrote to the respondents to make payment of the balance amount out of his claim of Rs.12,68,267/-. A series of letter and e-mails were exchanged between the petitioner and the Officers of the State and finally vide communication dated 27.02.2023, Joint Director (Academic) of the Commissionerate, College Education informed the petitioner that he was entitled only for tuition fee as per his family income and thus, nothing remained to be paid. Resultantly, petitioner’s claim of scholarship of Rs.12,68,267/- stood rejected.

10. Mr. Deepak Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have proceeded arbitrarily and as against petitioner’s claim of Rs.12,68,267/-, they have paid a paltry sum of Rs.64,232/-, on the pretext that he is entitled for tuition fee only and not for other claims.

11. Learned counsel argued that so far as tuition fee is concerned, the Cambridge University itself had granted scholarship and the petitioner had applied under the Scheme to get other amount of his expenses relating to study abroad. He added that while applying under the RGS Scheme, every fact was made known to the respondents and the amount of tuition fee was not even claimed. He clarified that the entire claim of the petitioner was for amount other than the tuition fee, which were admissible in the Scheme, and for such purpose, he navigated the Court through the Scheme and related documents on record.

12. Learned counsel contended that going by the RGS Scheme notified on 05.10.2021, a student was eligible not only for tuition fee but also for other amounts such as annual maintenance allowance; annual contingency and equipment allowance; visa fees; tuition fee; medical insurance premium; cost of air passage, revision of rates, etc.

13. Mr. Vyas submitted that as per the reply, the respondents have confined petitioner’s claim or rejected his claim for other amounts, citing that – permissible amount being a sum of Rs.64,232/- has been paid. He submitted that the same has been done in view of the p