The court emphasized that minor procedural errors should not deprive eligible candidates of opportunities, advocating for fairness and the avoidance of hyper-technical approaches in administrative decisions.

JUDGMENT

Index to the Judgment FACTUAL BACKDROP ................................................................. 2 SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THIS COURT .................................... 4 ANALYSIS & FINDINGS .............................................................. 9 The National Overseas Scholarship Scheme ......................................... 10 Avoiding Hyper-Technical Approach in Such Cases ........................... 14 The Petitioner’s Background and Achievements .................................. 16 The Struggles and Legacy of Traditional Artisans ....................................... 16 The Significance of Education in Breaking the Cycle of Poverty ...... 17 The Importance of Recognizing Inequalities in Justice ....................... 19 CONCLUSION ............................................................................. 20 Decision ..................................................................................................... 20 SWARANA KANTA SHARMA, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on behalf of the petitioner seeking following reliefs:

“a. Set aside order dated 19.07.2024 passed by Respondent qua the Petitioner; and b. Include the name of petitioner in the list of provisionally selected candidates making him eligible for scholarship subject to complete physical verification of documents and to completion of other requirements;”

FACTUAL BACKDROP

2. The petitioner before this Court i.e. Mr. Mohit Jitendera Kukadia has completed his Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Laws (Honors), Integrated Five Years Law Degree Course in Social Science and Language Examination, from the Faculty of Law, Maharaja Sayajirao University of Baroda, Vadodara, Gujarat in April 2020. The petitioner hails from a family of Traditional Artisans and wishes to avail the Central Sector Scholarship Scheme of National Overseas Scholarship („NOS‟) for Scheduled Castes etc. candidates offered by the respondent herein i.e., Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Department of Social Justice and Empowerment. The scholarship is meant to promote and help students who have secured admission in a foreign universities and belong to socially deprived sections like Scheduled Castes, Denotified tribes, etc. The scholarship covers all expenses of a student including fees, lodging, stipend etc.

3. The case set out by the petitioner is that he has received an offer confirming his place in the Masters of Public Policy by the Blavatnik School Government at the University of Oxford, United Kingdom and the said course shall start from 30.09.2024. Thus, the petitioner had applied online to avail the National Overseas Scholarship given by the respondent and the petitioner had uploaded all the relevant documents regarding his qualifications, family‟s traditional artisan status, family income etc. Thereafter, on 19.07.2024, the respondent had published the result of the National Overseas Scholarship comprising 3 lists of candidates: (i) provisionally selected, (ii) not selected and (iii) rejected candidates. The petitioner was placed in the rejected list with a single remark “ITR Acceptance document not furnished”. The petitioner had then rechecked his application and had found that he had mistakenly uploaded his Income Tax Return („ITR‟) computation instead of the ITR acceptance form. On 19.07.2024 the petitioner had sent a representation via email to the respondent to reconsider the „rejection‟ decision and he had also attached the copy of the required ITR acceptance form and other particulars of his NOS application. However, the petitioner had received no response. It is stated that the relevant guidelines provided that any grievance must be raised within

30 days.

4. Thereafter, on 24.07.2024, the petitioner had again sent a representation via email with an elaborate explanation of his bona fide error, along with a prayer for reconsideration of his application to the respondent. Thereafter, on 02.