Back
2020 Supreme(All) 919
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.
Aditya Tiwari & Anr. - Appellant
Versus
The State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Social Welfare & Ors. - Respondents
Misc. Single No.24573 of 2019
Decided on : 18-09-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Aditya Tiwari-In Person, Anurag Tripathi-In Person
For the Respondent: Amit Jaiswal, Savitra Vardhan Singh
Point of Law: It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order
Headnote:
Uttar Pradesh Samanya Varg Dashmottar Chhattravritti Yojna, 2012 – Education Laws – Scholarship Reimbursement – Petition was originally filed, praying for quashing of Rule 6(i)(a) and Rule 5(xv)(Gha) of the Government Order dated 20.9.2014, and Government Order and for quashing of the order passed by the District Social Welfare Officer, Lucknow, (opposite party no.3), rejecting the representation of the petitioners for full fee and scholarship reimbursement and for a direction to the opposite party nos.1 to 4 to release the remaining scholarship and fee reimbursement for academic years 2015-16, 2017-18, and 2018-19 and also for issuance of a mandamus commanding the University (Opposite party no.5) and City Academy Law College (opposite party no.6) to allow the petitioners to submit their examination form and take the forthcoming semester examinations of LL.B. Honours Five-years Course. –
Finding of the Court:
It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. In such a fact-situation, the legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" meaning thereby that if foundation is removed, the super structure or the whole work falls come into play, and applies on all fours to the present case. – Petitioners' challenge to the Amended scheme of 2014-2016 also on the ground of discrimination between similarly situated students is without any basis. – The petitioners are not similarly situated students as the candidates who qualify the Combined Law Aptitude Test (CLAT) Examinations or go through admission process determined by the University and who are alloted colleges on the basis of their marks obtained in the said Aptitude Test or Selection Test held by the State University to various colleges. – The students who are admitted through statewide counselling are first allotted to Government Colleges and to Autonomous Institutions/Deemed Universities and then to recognized Aided Institutions. – The students with lesser marks in the Aptitude Test or Selection Test or even students who have not appeared in the Aptitude Test at all, then take admission in private unaided colleges like opposite party no.6. – Opposite parties are entitled to issue recovery notice to the opposite party no.6 as wrong fee reimbursement and scholarship was given to the petitioners only because of wrong data being verified and locked digitally on the master database by the college. –
Result: Writ Petition Dismissed
JUDGMENT :
1. This petition was originally filed, praying for quashing of Rule 6(i)(a) and Rule 5(xv)(Gha) of the Government Order dated 20.9.2014, and Government Order dated 14.4.2016 respectively and for quashing of the order dated 26.8.2019 passed by the District Social Welfare Officer, Lucknow, (opposite party no.3), rejecting the representation of the petitioners for full fee and scholarship reimbursement and for a direction to the opposite party nos.1 to 4 to release the remaining scholarship and fee reimbursement for academic years 2015-16, 2017-18, and 2018-19 and also for issuance of a mandamus commanding the University (Opposite party no.5) and City Academy Law College (opposite party no.6) to allow the petitioners to submit their examination form and take the forthcoming semester examinations of LL.B. Honours Five-years Course.
2. This writ petition was filed on 5.9.2019 and an amendment application was moved on 16.9.2019, praying for a mandamus directing the opposite party no.6 to demand and charge the fees correctly and also to direct the State-respondents to take necessary action against the opposite party no.6 for charging excess fee from the petitioners. A further mandamus was sought to the opposite party no.5, the University to give the details of course fee for LL.B. Honours Five-years Course as fixed by it for private unaided institutions like the opposite party no.6. Further, an amendment application was later filed on 15.7.2020, praying for addition of certain pleadings and also for a direction to be issued to the opposite parties to immediately release the remaining amount of scholarship and fee reimbursement also for the year 2019-20, and a mandamus to be issued to the opposite party nos.1 to 5 to fix the course fee of LL.B. Honours Five-years Course of opposite party no.6, and a direction to be issued to the University and the College concerned to allow the petitioners to appear in the forthcoming semester examination. This amendment application was allowed on 16.9.20.
3. The aforesaid reliefs have been claimed by the petitioners while alleging that they had initially filed Writ Petition No.10763 (MS) of 2019 (Aditya Tiwari and another versus State of U.P. and others), which has been disposed off by this Court with a direction to the petitioners to submit a fresh representation before the District Social Welfare Officer, Lucknow, who would pass a reasoned and speaking order thereon. It has been submitted that the representation of the petitioners has been rejected arbitrarily by the opposite party no.3.
4. The petitioners have argued that they were admitted in LL.B. Honours Five-years integrated Course on 25.6.2015 in the City Academy Law College, Lucknow, opposite party no.6, which is a private unaided and affiliated College of Lucknow University. The course comprises of 10 semesters with two semesters every year and the course fee is Rs.25,000/-per semester i.e. Rs.50,000/-per academic year. The petitioners belong to General Category and have a very poor background as the annual income of their father is only Rs.48,000/-per year as per the Income Certificate issued by the Tehsildar, Musafirkhana, District Amethi.
5. It has been stated by the petitioners that the State of U.P. initiated a Scholarship Scheme, namely, Uttar Pradesh Samanya Varg Dashmottar Chhattravritti Yojna, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Scheme of 2012’). It provided for reimbursement of fee and also scholarship to be given to economically poor unreserved category students. The Scheme of 2012 was amended by Government Order dated 20.9.2014 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Scheme of 2014’) and thereafter further amended by another Government Order issued on 14.4.2016 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Scheme of
2016’).
6. The petitioners took admission under the Scheme of 2012 as amended by the Scheme of 2014, in the academic year 20
