Ensure rigorous evaluation for scholarship allocation: Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, November 16

Virtually reshaping the landscape of scholarship and fellowship allocation, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has emphasised the essentiality of thorough evaluation. Making it clear that more than a few students vied for scholarships, Justice Vikas Bahl of the high court ruled that the authorities were obligated to ensure allocation to the deserving by assessing entitlement based on application details and accompanying documents. The Bench, at the same time, clarified that issuance of notices to the denied applicants was neither a legal requirement nor practical.

The judgment came on a student’s plea challenging the declining of his claim for Rajiv Gandhi National Fellowship for Scheduled Caste (SC) candidates. Referring to a clause in the scheme, Justice Bahl observed that the fellowship was liable to be cancelled, among other things, on the ground that a candidate was availing the same from any other source.

Justice Bahl observed that the petitioner, as per his own case, was already availing scholarship/fellowship, disentitling him to the same under the scheme.

Justice Bahl asserted that scholarship/fellowship under the plan was a benefit extended to the students belonging to the SC community fulfilling the mentioned conditions. Several students applied under the scheme and it was the authorities’ duty to see whether an applicant was entitled to it on the basis of the averments in the application and the accompanying documents.

Justice Bahl observed: “Once from a reading of the application and the accompanying documents, it is clear that the candidate is not entitled to the scholarship/fellowship, as is in the case of the present petitioner, it is neither the requirement of law nor would it be feasible or practicable to issue notices to all the persons to whom the scholarship/fellowship is not being granted”.

Justice Bahl also made it clear that non-grant of a benefit under a beneficial scheme could not be equated with an adverse action to be taken against a person involving civil consequences. The claim’s rejection before its grant could not be stated to be illegal or unjustified.