HIMANSHI JAIN V. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS

CWP/7153/2012

AI Insights

Himanshi Jain challenged the decision of the Union of India and other respondents regarding the non-consideration of her scholarship application under the CSSS-2010 scheme. The scholarship was intended for students undergoing graduation and post-graduation courses, with specific eligibility criteria including a maximum parental income of \'4.5 lacs per annum. The petitioner argued that her application, submitted online in 2010, was eligible and should be considered despite the deadline, as other applications were still being processed. The respondents countered that the application was incomplete and submitted after the deadline, leading to its rejection. The court upheld the rejection, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the application process and deadlines as specified in the scheme.

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 742365 (HC-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Right to Information Act, 2005
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: RAJIV SHARMA; HARSH AGGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY VASHIST
• Keywords: Central Sector Scheme of Scholarship for Colleges and University Students-2010; CSSS-2010 scheme; Scholarship application; Non-creamy layer; Income affidavit; Summary rejection
• Section: 36033/S/2004- Estt. (Res.)

Judgement Text

"CWP No.7153 of 2012 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CWP No.7153 of 2012 Date of Decision: 10.09.2013 ***** Himanshi Jain . . . .Petitioner Versus Union of India and others . . . . Respondents ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.Sanjay Vashist, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate, for UOI. Mr.Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The petitioner has challenged memorandum/letter dated 14.2.2012 by which request of the father of the petitioner for awarding Central Sector Scheme of Scholarship for Colleges and University Students-2010 [for short ‘the CSSS-2010 scheme’] is declined to be considered on the ground that the process of the CSSS-2010 scheme has already been completed. In short, respondent No.1 floated a scheme known as CSSS-2010 for awarding various amounts of scholarships to the students undergoing Graduation and Post-graduation courses. The petitioner is allegedly eligible for the CWP No.7153 of 2012 - 2 - scholarships and submitted online application with Registration No.CSSS-10/000317 through proper channel as required in the Scheme, on 19.10.2010. It was provided in the CSSS-2010 scheme that the total income of the parents of the applicant should not exceed `4.5 lacs per annum. The necessary affidavit was submitted by the father of the petitioner but despite that no response was received. The father of the petitioner made enquiry through an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and came to know that income affidavit along with application form was not submitted, therefore, their case was not considered by the screening committee. It was also found that total eligible candidates under the CSSS-2010 scheme are 3717 but the amount of scholarship has not been released to them because the process of grant of scholarship was under process. The case set up by the petitioner is that the application was sent on 19.10.2010 which could not have been declined to be considered by respondent No.2 on the ground that it has been received after the expiry of time though the other applications which were received are still being processed, therefore, the case of the petitioner could be easily considered along with them for the grant of scholarship to the petitioner, who is otherwise fully eligible. After notice, reply has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2 in which it is averred that according to the CSSS-2010 scheme, the last date for the students, who have CWP No.7153 of 2012 - 3 - passed Senior School Certificate, 2010 (XIIth Class) in 2010, was 31.12.2010. According to the instructions provided in the scheme, the online generated application form was required to be sent with income affidavit on a Non-Judicial Stamp paper in original bearing online registration number on its top. It was also provided that applications without the aforesaid documents will be rejected summarily and no correspondence shall be entertained in this regard. It is further provided that only online application forms will be accepted. Forms of previous years or website printouts without bearing online registration number will be rejected. The application in respect of the candidates who have filled in the details online but have not submitted the signed forms along with the joining report, income affidavit before due date will be rejected. It is also provided that application received after due date shall be summarily rejected. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the income affidavit of the father of the petitioner was sent by him in February 2012 and was still incomplete as he did not enclose income of the last three consecutive years ending on 31.3.2010. It is further averred that 3322 incomplete applications have been rejected in the same scheme floated to upgrade and enhance the confidence of the students of their betterment in future relating to non- creamy layer of the employees of the Civil Services of Centre and State Governments or on the comparable posts in Public CWP No.7153 of 2012 - 4 - Sector Undertakings, Banks, Insurance Organizations, Universities or likewise or holding equivalent or comparable posts under private organizations, as provided in the Government Notification. It is alleged that the petitioner has nowhere mentioned in the petition as to what was the vocation of her parents and how she falls under the category of non-creamy layer within the meaning of the Government Notification G.I. Deptt. Of Per. & Trg. Lr. No.36033/S/2004- Estt. (Res.) dated 14.10.2004 because parents of the petitioner are neither Central Government or State Government employees nor of nationalized banks or universities etc. but her father is a self employed lawyer and her mother is a housewife. Therefore, they do not fall in the category of the non-creamy layer of the employees as provided in the Government notification and since the income affidavit was not filed before 31.12.2010 which was admittedly sent in February 2012, after a delay of more than one year and one month, her case has not been entertained being highly belated because even by that time batch of 2011 was already considered. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is not denied by learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner had the requisite marks to make her eligible for applying under CSSS-2010 scheme. It is also stated by learned counsel for the respondents that last CWP No.7153 of 2012 - 5 - date of receipt of online application form was 31.12.2010 and even if it is presumed that the petitioner had sent her application on 19.10.2010, the requisite affidavit on stamp paper of `10/- in original of the income of the parents of the petitioner along with income tax return or Form 16 of the parents of the year ending March 2010 was not attached and has been submitted in February 2012. It is clear from Note 2 of the CSSS-2010 scheme that only online application forms were to be accepted. It is repeatedly made clear that application received after due date shall be summarily rejected and it is alleged in the reply that father of the petitioner had submitted income affidavit in February 2012 but by that time a batch of 2010 & 2011 had already been considered and 3322 incomplete applications of the batch of the petitioner, deficient in material particulars, were rejected. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner should have been vigilant in complying with the conditions laid down in the CSSS-2010 scheme, which may be socially beneficial scheme, because the last date of receipt of application was categorically fixed with a purpose to process the applications in time and award the scholarships. Moreover, the parents of the petitioner are also not coming under the non-creamy layer as he is a self employed Advocate and the mother of the petitioner is a house wife. CWP No.7153 of 2012 - 6 - Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 10.09.2013 JUDGE Vivek Pahwa Vivek 2013.09.16 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document "