# Aditya Tiwari & Anr v. The State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2020) 9 ILRA 307
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2020-09-18
- **Case number:** Misc Single No. 24573 of 2019
- **Bench:** Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/aditya-tiwari-anr-v-the-state-of-u-p-ors-45940
- **Pages:** 16

## Headnote

C.S.C., Amit Jaiswal, Savitra Vardhan Singh

Scholarship and Fees reimnursmnet for
first few semesters was given on technical
glitches-elligibility for scholarship-60%
marks in intermediate-Petitioners have
less than 60 % marks-inelligible.

Petition dismissed. (E-9)

Cases referred: -

## Text

_Characters 0–39,935 of 54,200. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39935 for what follows._

9 All. Aditya Tiwari & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
307
such circumstances, if a condition of pre
deposit has been imposed by the legislature
under their wisdom, it cannot be considered
to
be
unconstitutional
not
being
unreasonable or onerous.

29. If the facts of this case are taken into
consideration, it shows that the petitioner had
booked Flat No.K-6/A-7/0610 on a total value of
Rs.8,40,000/-. When the possession of the flat was
not given despite deposit of initial amount, the
Real Estate Authority directed for its return
alongwith interests and that too only the amount
which was deposited by the complainant.

30. In those circumstances, if
petitioner is directed to comply the
direction of Section 43(5), it cannot be said
to be unreasonable or onerous on the
petitioner for maintaining the appeal.

31. The object of the Act of 2016 is
quite clear and Section 43 (5) is for the
purpose sought to be achieved. It is to
secure the complainant after adjudication of
the matter by Real Estate Regulatory
Authority. Thus, even on the facts of this
case and in reference to the provisions of
the Act of 2016, we find condition of pre
deposit for hearing of the appeal to be
neither unreasonable nor onerous so as to
treat remedy to be illusory. The challenge
to the provision cannot sustain rather for it,
the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

32. The petitioner is given liberty to avail
the remedy of appeal as per provisions of law, if
he so chooses because writ petition on the facts
of this case would not be maintainable for
challenge to the order of the Real Estate
Regulatory Authority.

33. With the liberty aforesaid, the writ
petition is dismissed.
----------
(2020)09ILR A307
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 18.09.2020

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Misc Single No. 24573 of 2019

Aditya Tiwari & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Aditya Tiwari-In Person, Anurag Tripathi-In
Person

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Amit Jaiswal, Savitra Vardhan Singh

Scholarship and Fees reimnursmnet for
first few semesters was given on technical
glitches-elligibility for scholarship-60%
marks in intermediate-Petitioners have
less than 60 % marks-inelligible.

Petition dismissed. (E-9)

Cases referred: -

1. Shaunak Gupta Vs U.O.I.-W.P. No.5104
(M/S) of 2013

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sangeeta Chandra, J.)

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
308 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
remaining
scholarship
and
fee
reimbursement for academic years 201516, 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 Fiveyears 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 Fiveyears 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
9 All. Aditya Tiwari & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
309
the Scheme of 2014, in the academic year
2015-16 and, therefore, the amended
Scheme of 2016 was inapplicable to them.
It has been argued that the petitioners being
fully eligible for fee reimbursement and
scholarship for the academic sessions 201516 to 2018-19 submitted online application
forms, but except for academic year 201617 where they received full amount of
Rs.56,360/-
as
scholarship
and
fee
reimbursement, petitioner no.1 has not
received full fee
reimbursement and
scholarship
in
the
remaining
years.
Similarly, petitioner no.2 has received full
fee reimbursement and scholarship for two
academic sessions of 2015-16 and 20162017, but thereafter no fee reimbursement
has been made to the petitioner no.2 also.

7. A chart explaining year-wise
scholarship and fee reimbursement amount
received by the two petitioners has been
given in Paragraph-14 of the writ petition,
which is being reproduced below:-
Session
Year
Petition
No.1
(Aditya
Tiwari)
Petition No.2
(Anurag Tripathi)
2015-16 Rs.0/-
Rs.54,770/-
2016-17 Rs.56,3
60/-
Rs.56,360/-
2017-18
Rs.0/-
Rs.0/-
2018-19
Rs.19,4
40/-
Rs.19,440/-

The petitioners being aggrieved
made several representations, but did not
receive any response.

8. The opposite party no.6, on the
other hand, claimed that the Lucknow
University, the opposite party no.5 had
digitally locked wrong fee of Rs.13,080/- in
respect of each academic year for the
college concerned instead of Rs.50,000/-
fixed earlier.

9. The petitioners have stated that this
Court on 8.4.2019 in Writ Petition No.5101
(MS) of 2013 (Shounak Gupta versus
Union of India and others) had allowed full
fee reimbursement to a similarly situated
writ
petitioner.
The
petitioners
had,
therefore, filed Writ Petition No.10763
(MS) of 2019, which was disposed off,
directing the petitioners to approach the
District Social Welfare Officer through a
fresh
representation.
The
petitioners'
representation has now been rejected.

10. It has been argued that in the
earlier writ petition filed by the petitioners,
the District Social Welfare Officer had filed
a counter affidavit in which, it was
submitted that due to Rule 5(xv)(Gha) of
the Scheme of 2016, the petitioners were
found ineligible for full fee reimbursement
and scholarship. It is the petitioners' case
that the petitioners had taken admission in
June, 2015 and, therefore, the amended
Scheme of 2016 was inapplicable to them.
They have also challenged the amended
scheme.

11. It has been argued by the
petitioners that since the opposite party
no.6 is an affiliated Law College of the
Lucknow University, it shall have to follow
the fee schedule for five year LL.B.
Honours Course as fixed by the Lucknow
University. The fee schedule for Lucknow
University
LL.B.
Honours
Five-year
Course has been fixed through letters dated
25.5.2015,
10.5.2018
and
30.7.2018
collectively filed as Annexure-15 to the
writ petition.

12. It has been further argued that
neither opposite party no.5 nor any other
310 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
competent authority has fixed course fee
for opposite party no.6, therefore, the
opposite party no.5 has arbitrarily and
wrongly locked reduced fee of Rs.13,080/-
instead of real feel of opposite party no.6 of
Rs.50,000/- per academic year.

13. It has been argued that in the
order dated 26.8.2019, the opposite party
no.4 has mentioned that only students, who
have obtained more than 60% marks in
Intermediate Examination are eligible for
full fee reimbursement and scholarship. It
has been argued that the basic eligibility of
student for the scheme is financial
incapacity of the guardian and not the type
of educational institution he gets admitted
in, or the possession of high percentage of
marks in Intermediate Exam. The Rule as
cited in the order dated 26.8.2019 is
arbitrary and, therefore, deserves to be
quashed. Moreover, in the original Scheme
of 2012, there is no compulsory Rule of
getting 60% marks in Intermediate for
grant of benefit of fee reimbursement and
scholarships.

14. The petitioners, however, admit
that they had obtained 58% and 57% marks
respectively in Intermediate examination
and the eligibility criteria for taking
admission in LL.B. Honours Five-years
Course in the college of opposite party no.6
is only possession of 50% marks in
Intermediate.

15. It has further been argued that as per
Rule 11(v) of the Scheme of 2012, weightage
marks to students is calculated on the basis of
income of the guardian and marks obtained in
the previous semester examination and not the
Intermediate
examination,
therefore,
the
interpretation of the Rules by the opposite
party no.4 that the petitioners having less than
60% marks in Intermediate is arbitrary. The
opposite parties have wrongly interpreted the
Rules to minimize the number of eligible
students for grant of fee reimbursement and
scholarship.

16. Also, it has been argued by the
petitioners that if the concerned college has
wrongly filled up the course fee in the
University database and any recovery
notice has been issued to the college
concerned, then it would not prejudice the
case
of
the
petitioners,
who
are
independently
entitled
for
fee
reimbursement and scholarship.

17. It has been argued that the
students of other private institutions as well
as
Lucknow
University
and
some
autonomous Institutions having equal status
to that of opposite party no.6 for LL.B. and
LL.B. Honours Courses have been given
full fee reimbursement and scholarship.
One famous college in the city affiliated to
Lucknow
University
has
its
fees
determined for LL.B. Honours Course by
the
State
Government
by
its
letter
no.573/sadar-1-2018-16(29)/2018
Dated
3.7.2018 at Rs.25,000/- per semester and
fees for its students is being reimbursed on
the basis of fees of Rs.50,000/- per year.

18. The college of the petitioners is a
private college like the college whose fee has
been determined by letter of Government
dated 3.7.2018 and the course fee for LL.B.
Honours Course has been fixed as Rs.50,000/-
per year, which is equal to the fees of
Lucknow University students course fee in
identical Self Financed Courses. The Lucknow
University has arbitrarily reduced the course
fee to Rs.13,080/- per academic year for the
petitioners' college.

19. Lastly, it has been argued that the
petitioners have taken loans from their
9 All. Aditya Tiwari & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
311
relatives to pay the fees of the college for
the semester examinations held in the past
and they are entitled to be given the benefit
of judgement rendered by this Court in
Shaunak Gupta (supra).

20. A short counter affidavit has been
filed on behalf of opposite party no.5 by the
Registrar of the University, wherein it has
been stated that the fee for associated and
affiliated colleges of Lucknow University
has to be determined by the State
Government, but the State Government has
not yet determined the fee. The Lucknow
University has no power to determine the
fee of private institutions affiliated with it.
The Registrar, Lucknow University through
letter dated 10.5.2018 made a request to the
State Government that fees had already
been determined for Self Financed Courses
run by the Lucknow University through
University Ordinance in May, 2015 and till
such determination of fee is made by the
State Government with respect to private
affiliated colleges, the fee determined for
Self Financed Courses run by Lucknow
University should also be made applicable
to private institutions. In response to the
letter
sent
by
the
Registrar,
State
Government had issued a letter on
30.7.2018, which was placed in the meeting
of
Executive
Council
of
Lucknow
University on 10.8.2018 as Agenda Item
No.1A. The Executive Council of the
Lucknow University has resolved that the
fee
determined
through
University
Ordinance
dated
25.5.2015
for
its
professional Self Financed Courses run
within the campus of Lucknow University,
should also be made applicable to private
institutions running identical courses. A
proposal under Section 52(3)(c) of the State
Universities Act, 1973 has been made to
the State Government for its approval. The
Registrar, Lucknow University also sent
reminders on 14.8.2018 and 20.8.2018 to
the State Government for fixation of fee for
affiliated private colleges running identical
courses. A reply was still awaited.

21. A rejoinder affidavit to the short
counter affidavit filed by the opposite party
no.5 has also been filed by the petitioners
where they have reiterated the contents of
the writ petition and the rejoinder affidavit
filed by them earlier saying that now the
opposite party no.5 has also admitted in its
short counter affidavit that the Lucknow
University has no power to fix the course
fee for Five years' LL.B. Honours Course
run by its affiliated colleges like the
opposite
party
no.6. The
power
to
determine fee is vested in the State
Government. Yet
the
University
has
wrongly locked fee digitally on its portal
for students of private colleges like the
petitioners.

22. The Opposite Party No.6 has filed
a counter affidavit in which it has reiterated
that it charges Rs.25,000/- per semester i.e.
Rs.50,000 per year from its students for
LLB Honours course being run by it. It has
referred to the University Ordinance issued
on 25th May 2015 in relation to course fee
for students studying in Constituent and
Associated Colleges as Fee Ordinance
notified also for self financed courses run
in private colleges.

23. This Court has carefully perused
Page-9 of the counter affidavit which
clearly states that it is an Ordinance by
Lucknow
University
relating
to
fee
prescribed for faculty of Arts, Science,
Commerce, Law, Education and Finance
for the Academic Session 2015-2016
onwards. On perusal of Page-20 of the
counter affidavit of Opposite Party No.6, it
is apparent that it relates to proposed
312 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Ordinance relating to fee prescribed for
Lucknow University self financed courses
for the year 2015-2016 in its various
faculties.

24. Opposite Party No.6 has also
referred to a letter issued on 26th June 2018
by the Registrar Lucknow University
saying that for Academic year 2018-2019,
the fee was fixed as before. It has been
mentioned in the counter affidavit of
Opposite Party No.6 that affiliated colleges
of Lucknow University may charge only
the newly prescribed Examination Fee and
Enrollment fee from new students for the
year 2018-2019, whereas other fees shall
remain the same as per the document
annexed with the said letter which
document mentions the fee for L.L.B.
Honours Five-year self Financed Course as
Rs.25,580.

25. A counter affidavit has been filed
by the Opposite Party No.3 in which he has
referred to the Government Order dated
14.04.2016 by which Rule 5 (xv) (Gha) has
been amended and it has been provided that
private degree colleges recognised by the
University have to get their fee determined
by the Competent Authority. In case of nondetermination of fee by the Competent
Authority, the students will be reimbursed
according to the fee fixed for regular and
identical courses run by the University and
its constituent Colleges, or the actual fee
paid by the student or Rs.50,000/- per
Academic year, whichever is less. It has
been submitted that excess fee had been
mentioned by the Opposite Party No.6
while verifying the Online Forms of its
students as a result where of excess money
has been paid under the Scheme of 2016 to
the Opposite Party No.6. Recovery notices
have been issued by the District Magistrate,
Lucknow/Chairman of the Scholarship
Sanctioning Committee Lucknow. It has
further been stated that the Registrar by his
letter dated 10.05.2018 had made a request
to the Higher Education Department for
implementation of the fee determined and
approved by the Executive Council of the
University for courses run by it and
proposed that the same should also be made
applicable to private Institutions affiliated
to the Lucknow University. The Special
Secretary Higher Education by letter dated
30.07.2018 has issued directions to enforce
the fee determined by the Executive
Council for self financed Courses run by it,
through issuance of Ordinance by the
University.

26. In pursuance of the directions of
the Higher Education Department, no
Ordinance has been issued as yet by the
Lucknow University so as to enable the
Department of Social Welfare to make fee
reimbursement in accordance with the fee
determined by the Executive Council for
self financed courses run by Lucknow
University. Earlier the Higher Education
Department through various Government
Orders had fixed the fee for B.A., B.Sc.,
B.Com., M.A. M.Sc., M.Com. Courses
which has been revised from time to time
as also B.Ed. courses run by private
unaided colleges. Similarly, the Higher
Education Department alone is entitled to
fix the fees for L.L.B. Honours five-year
course also for private unaided Institutions
but the same has not been fixed till date by
the Higher Education Department.

27. The Opposite Party No.3 has also
stated in Paragraph-7 that the Registrar,
Lucknow University by a letter dated
01.09.2017 had informed the District
Magistrate,
Lucknow/Chairman
Post
Matric
Scholarship
and
Fee
Reimbursement Sanctioning Committee
9 All. Aditya Tiwari & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
313
that Lucknow University only determines
the curriculum and the number of seats of a
particular course being recognised by it for
a private college and except for enrollment
fee and examination fee no other fee is
fixed by the University for private colleges.
The fees determined for private Institutions
has to be done by the Government and not
the University. Since fee for running L.L.B.
Honours five years course in private
Institutions like Opposite Party No.6 has
not been determined by the Government,
Fee reimbursement under the Scheme of
2016 is being done by the Opposite Party
No.3 under the advice of the Chairman
Scholarship Sanctioning Committee as per
Rule 5 (xv) (Gha) of the amended scheme
for 2016. As and when fee is determined by
the Competent Authority or a clarification
is made by the Lucknow University of its
letter dated 01.09.2017, the appropriate
proceedings for fee reimbursement shall be
undertaken by the Opposite Party No.3.

28. It has been stated in Paragraph-8
of the counter affidavit that the Director,
Social Welfare Department through a letter
dated
18.09.2019
has
sought
a
comprehensive report in respect of fees
from the Registrar, Lucknow University
which is still awaited. The Opposite Party
No.3 has reiterated that after considering all
relevant records and the Rules of 2014 and
2016 as well as the judgement rendered by
this Court on 08.04.2019 in Shaunak
Gupta Vs. Union of India (supra), a
reasoned and speaking order has been
passed by him rejecting the representations
of the petitioners. It has been stated that the
amended Rules of 2016 shall be applicable
to all students studying in any year
including second year, third year, fourth
year and fifth year students L.L.B. Honours
five years course. It has further been stated
in Paragraph-17 of the counter affidavit that
the Petitioner No.1 did not qualify for fee
reimbursement and Scholarship because he
had not obtained more than 60% marks in
Intermediate which is the required criteria
for fee reimbursement. Petitioner No.2 was
found
eligible
by
the
State-Level
Committee and payment of Rs.54,770 was
made to him for the Academic year 20152016. The students are expected to fill up
Online Forms for fee reimbursement and
scholarship. The Educational Institution in
which they are studying is required to fill
up the fee charged from such students in
Master database which is thereafter verified
and
forwarded
by
the
University
concerned. Opposite Party No.6 did not
digitally lock the correct fee therefore,
wrong payments and excess payment was
made. The District Scholarship Committee
has issued notices to 165 similarly situated
Institutions affiliated with the Lucknow
University for recovery of excess amount
reimbursed to the students in Academic
session 2016-2017.

29. It has been stated in Paragraph-17
of the counter affidavit that an order of
preference has been given under Rule 11
(iv) of the Scheme of 2014 and fee
reimbursement and scholarship has to be
done only in accordance with the order of
preference
given
therein.
Since
the
petitioners did not possess 60% marks in
Intermediate, the qualifying examination
for admission in private unaided Institution
like
the
Opposite
Party
No.6,
the
application of the petitioners was rejected
for the year 2017-2018 by the Sanctioning
Committee. Notices have been issued for
recovery of excess payment made to the
petitioners because of the fault of the
Opposite Party No.6 The District Social
Welfare Officer has also stated that as per
the decision of the Scholarship Sanctioning
Committee and the amended Rules of 2016,
314 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
payment has been made to the petitioners
of Rs.13,080 towards L.L.B. Honours
fourth year fee and Rs.6,360/- towards
scholarship that is a total amount of
Rs.19,440 only. The Opposite Party No.3
has also distinguished the judgement
rendered by this Court on 8th April 2019 in
Writ Petition No.5104 (M/S) of 2013
(Shaunak Gupta Vs. Union of India) on
the ground that it relates to Other Backward
Classes Candidate.

30. In Paragraph-32 of the counter
affidavit of Opposite Party No.3 the
distinction has been made between students
like the petitioners and the students of
Central and State Universities and Private
Universities created through enactment by
State Legislature. The Opposite Party No.6
however,
is
a
private
Educational
Institution to which only affiliation has
been granted by the Lucknow University.
The Institution is not having the status
equal to that of an autonomous Institution
or a constituent or associated college of
Lucknow University.

31. In their rejoinder affidavit to
counter affidavit of Opposite Party No.3
the petitioners have very cleverly quoted
Rule 5 (xv) (Gha) of the Rules of 2016
leaving out the portion relating to exception
carved out for self financed courses run by
the Lucknow University. The petitioners
have stated that City Academy Law
College is recognised private Institution
affiliated to a State University i.e. the
Lucknow University and the course fee for
similarly placed L.L.B. Honours students in
Lucknow University is Rs.25,000/- per
Semester or Rs.50,000 per year, and the
Opposite Party No.6 is charging the same
fee. The petitioners have also paid the full
course fee i.e. Rs.25,000/- per Semester
from Semester 1 to 7 to the Institution and
have submitted Online applications for Fee
reimbursement and scholarship within time
but the opposite parties are discriminating
amongst similarly situated students of
private Institutions and those studying in
Lucknow University in reimbursement of
fee
and
scholarship
amount.
The
respondents are reducing every year the
amount
of
scholarship
and
fee
reimbursement
from
Rs.50,000/-
to
Rs.13,080/- in the Academic year 20182019 and further reduced the amount to
Rs.4500/- for Academic year 2019-2020
whereas only Examinations Fee for L.L.B.
Honours student this year is Rs.8,065/-.
The
University
itself
has
stated
in
Paragraph-7 of its affidavit that it has no
power determine or to reduce the amount of
fee for L.L.B. Honours five years course in
the master Database of the Scholarship
Portal as against the original fee charged by
the Institution. Without fixation of course
fee for private Institutions by Competent
Authority, the reduction of fees of students
on the Scholarship Portal and reduction in
the amount of reimbursement by the
University
unilaterally,
has
adversely
affected the students.

32. It has further been stated by the
petitioners
that
by
putting
onerous
conditions successively through various
amendments to the Original Scholarship
Scheme,
State-respondents
intend
to
maliciously eliminate deserving General
Category students defeating the very object
of the Scheme. The only eligibility required
for grant of fee reimbursement and
scholarship under the Scheme of 2012 is
the financial incapacity of the applicant
student, not the type of educational
Institution in which he was studying, or the
high percentage of marks in Intermediate. It
has further been submitted that it is not
open for the State-respondents to now refer
9 All. Aditya Tiwari & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
315
to limited funds available with them as the
State cannot shirk from its already
committed liability. The petitioners took
admission in June, 2015 and therefore shall
be governed by the unamended scheme.

33. In Paragraph-27 of the rejoinder
affidavit, it has been stated that fixation of fee
for private Institution is the subject matter of
State Government or the University but the
students cannot be allowed to suffer for no
fault of theirs. The Opposite Party No.6 is
charging the same fee in L.L.B. Honours five
years course as is being charged by the
Lucknow University self financed L.L.B.
Honours five years course. Additionally, in
Paragraph-28 of the rejoinder affidavit, a
reference
has
been
made
to
Online
application having been made by the
petitioners for the Academic year 2019-2020
which has been rejected by the respondent.

34. A supplementary counter affidavit
has been filed by the opposite party no.3,
wherein it has been stated that the Competent
Authority under the Amended scheme of
2016 shall determine the fee to be charged by
the private recognized institutions and in case
such fee has not been fixed by the competent
authority, Rule 5 (XV)(d) provides that fee
that is being charged for the same course by
State
Universities
(except
self-financed
course) or the fee being charged by the
institution
concerned
or
Rs.50,000/-,
whichever is less, would be reimbursed. The
Lucknow University has locked Rs.50,000/-
as fee charged by the institution without
verifying/examining the data uploaded by the
college concerned and without looking into
the eligibility criteria for fee reimbursement
and scholarship.

35. It has further been stated that by
Government order dated 30.07.2018, the
University had been informed that the fee
determined by it for running self-financed
courses may be implemented also for
affiliated
institutions
running
similar
courses. It is therefore for the affiliating
University to have issued neccessary
ordinance. Despite such clear instructions
from the Government, the University has
not fixed fee for courses running by private
affiliated colleges by issuing any orders in
this regard, however, it has verified
Rs.50,000/- as charged by the opposite
party no.6. The mistake of the affiliating
University in the year 2016-17 has now
been rectified by the affiliating University
when correct facts were brought to its
notice and now the Scholarship Sanctioning
Committee has issued notices for recovery
of excess payment made to the students.

36. Having heard the petitioner no.1,
who appeared through video link, Sri
Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for
the respondent and Sri Amit Jaiswal,
learned counsel for the respondent, this
Court has carefully perused the order dated
26.08.2019 passed by the District Social
Welfare
Officer,
Lucknow,
on
the
representation of the petitioners. It is
apparent therefrom that the opposite party
no.3 has firstly referred to the facts as
mentioned in the representation of the
petitioners for reimbursement to be made to
them for the Academic Years i.e. 2015-16,
2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19. He has
referred to the provision given under Rule
5(xv) (Gha) and the letter No.573/sattar-12018-16(29)/2018 dated 30.07.2018, by
which fee for L.L.B. Honours five-years
course has been determined for selffinanced courses being run by the Lucknow
University. The petitioners had submitted
that since the Government had approved
the proposal of the Executive Council of
the Lucknow University dated 25.05.2015,
the same fee can be charged by the City
316 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Academy Law College- respondent no.6.
The opposite party no.3 has refuted the claim of
the petitioners on the ground that the University,
in pursuance of the letter of Higher Education
Department dated 30.07.2018 has not issued
any order fixing any fee for its affiliated
colleges therefore the contention of the
petitioners that the fee determined by the
University Executive Council for self-financed
courses being run by it shall be applicable to
City Academy Law College also. The opposite
party no.3 has also referred to the Amended
scheme notified by the Government Order
dated 14.04.2016 and Rule 6(i)(a) which clearly
indicates that in all professional courses where
admission is taken on the basis of marks
obtained
in
qualifying
Intermediate
examination/ Class XII examination, fee
reimbursement and scholarship shall be given
to only those students who had obtained 60%
marks
in
such
Class
XII/Intermediate
examination. The L.L.B. Honours course is a
professional course and fee reimbursement and
scholarship can be given to only those students
who obtained 60% marks in the Intermediate
examination
which
is
the
qualifying
examination. The opposite party no.3 has
rejected the claim of the petitioners that the
amended Rule of 2016 shall not be applicable
to them they having already studied for two
years and being in the third year, and that they
cannot be divested of their right to claim
reimbursement. The opposite party no.3 in his
order dated 26.08.2019 states that the elegibility
criteria of obtaining at least 60% marks in
Interimediate examination has been applicable
with effect from 20.09.2014, and the petitioners
took admission in L.L.B. Honours five-years
course in June, 2015 in the Academic Session
2015-16.

37. The contention of the petitioners
that Rule 11(v) shall be applicable to them
and not Rule 6(i)(a) has also been rejected
by opposite party no.3 as misconceived, as
he found Rule 11(v) as only referring to the
order of preference to be followed for
giving renewal of fee reimbursement and
scholarship to initially eligible candidates.
The petitioners according to the opposite
party no.3 were not eligible initially to get
the fee reimbursement and scholarship,
therefore, there was no question of renewal
on the basis of the order of preference
given under Rule 11(v).

38. The opposite party no.3 has also
rejected the contention raised by the
petitioners in their representation that
wrong fee has been digitally locked in the
master database by the College concerned
and recovery notices have been wrongly
issued. The order dated 26.08.2019 clearly
states that the amended scholarship scheme
notified
on 20.09.2014
provided
the
eligibility criteria and the amount of fee to
be reimbursed and if any wrong or excess
payment has been made on the basis of
wrong uploading of data on the master
database by the City Academy Law
College, the petitioners being beneficiaries
thereof would also be liable for recovery.

39.

The
arguments
regarding
discrimination between similarly situated
students raised by the petitioners in their
representation has also been dealt with by
the opposite party no.3 by referring the
conditions of admission of students in State
or Central Universities/ Colleges and aided
private colleges associated with them and
the difference in admission procedure of
private
un-aided
but
recognized
and
affiliated colleges.

40. From a perusal of the order dated
26.08.2019, this Court finds that each and
every contention raised by the petitioners in
their representation dated 13.08.2019 has
been considered and a reasoned and
9 All. Aditya Tiwari & Anr. Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
317
speaking order has been passed by the
opposite party no.3. Now this Court has to
consider the validity of the reasons given
by the opposite party no.3 in rejecting the
claim of the petitioner.

41. This Court has carefully gone
through the original scheme as notified by
the Government Order dated 07.01.2013.
The Government Order clearly states that
the scheme was floated for helping
"meritorious"
students
of
un-reserved
category whose guardian's financial status
was such as would prevent them from
pursuing
their
professional
courses
smoothly. The original scholarship scheme
as notified on 07.01.2013 was made
applicable with effect from July, 2012 for
Academic Session 2012-2013. It refers to
"free" seats and "paid" seats and admission
in professional courses by poor un-reserved
category students and the amount of fee
reimbursement
and
scholarship
etc.
available to them. Certain professional
courses however have been excluded from
the applicability of the scheme which are
not being referred here as they are
irrelevant for decision of this case. A
master database was to be created of all
recognized educational institutions running
such professional courses by the Social
Welfare Department. Fee had to be given
initially by the student concerned and
reimbursement alone was to be made
admissile
after
verifying
online
applications submitted.

42. The scheme of 2012 was amended
by the Government Order dated 20.09.2014
and the said Government Order was made
applicable with effect from Academic
Session 2014-15.

43. As the petitioners having
challenged Rule 5(xv)(Gha), it is necessary
to quote Rule 5(xv)(Gha) of the amended
Scheme of 2016.

"5(xv)(Gha).
Pradesh
ke
Vishvidhyalayon
se
sambadh
jin niji
kshetron ke manyata prapt sansthano mein
sanchalit pathyakramon ke shulk saksham
pradhakari star se nirdharit nahi hain un
sanchalit pathyakramon hetu pradesh ke
kisi
bhi
rajya
Vishvidhyalayon
mein
sanchalit usi pathyakramon (swatah vitt
poshit pathyakramon ko chhodte hue) mein
nirdharit nyuntam shulk athwa sanstha
dwara chatron se jama karayi gayi vastavik
fees athwa Rs.50,000/- mein se jo bhi kam
ho, ki pratipurti ki jayigi."

44. It is apparent from a perusal of the
said Rule challenged in this petition that it
refers to those Private and unaided colleges
whose fees has not been determined by the
competent authority. Students of such
colleges would be entitled to either the fees
being charged for identical course (except
Self Financed Course) by any State
University, or the fees actually deposited by
the student in the college concerned or
Rs.50,000/-, whichever is lower.

45. The petitioners have also
challenged Rule 6(i)(a) of the Scheme of
2014, which is being quoted here in below:

"6(i)(a).
Chhatravritti
hetu
samanya varg ke abhiyarthi nimnlikhit
sharton/pratibantho ke adhin patra honge:-

(i) kewal ve hi abhyarthi iske
patra honge, jo Uttar Pradesh rajya se
sambandhit ho arthat Uttar Pradesh rajya
ke sthai niwasi ho evam jo Uttar Pradesh
rajya kshetra ke sambandh mein vinirdisht
samanya varg se sambandhit ho aur
jinhone
kisi
manyata
prapt
vishwavidhyalya ya madhyamik shiksha
board ki matriculation ya higher secondary
318 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ya isse koi uchhattar pariksha utrin kar li
ho thatapi:-

(a)
Private
sansthano
mein
parishisth-jha
mein ankit
professional
pathyakramo mein jahan kaksha-12 ke
praptanko ke adhar per pravesh diya jata
hai, wahan chhatravritti evam shulk
pratipurti prapt karne hetu benchmark
kaksha-12 ki pariksha mein 60 pratishat
nyuntam praptank hoga. Yah pravidhan
gair professional pathyakramo per lagu
nahi honge."

46. It is apparent from a perusal of
Rule 6(i)(a) that Benchmark for eligibility
for full fee reimbursement and scholarship
is securing 60% marks in Class 12th
examination for those students who take
admission in unaided private institutions,
which run professional courses and in
which, the criteria to give admission is on
the basis of marks secured in Class 12th
examination.
This
amendment
was
introduced by Government Order dated
20.9.2014 and was applicable to the
petitioners who took admission in LL.B.
Honours Course in the college concerned in
academic session 2015-16.

47. Rule 11(i) of the Government
Order dated 20.9.2014 is also important for
determining the eligibility of the petitioners
to obtain full fee reimbursement and
scholarship under the amended Scheme of
2014. It is being quoted here in below:

"11. Chatra ko anurakshan bhatta
va shulk pratipurti ke bhugtaan hetu
shikshan sanstao ki variyata kram ka
nirdharan.

(i)
chhatrivritti
evam
shulk
pratipurti hetu ahar chatra/chatraon ko
anurakshan bhatta evam shulk pratipurti
dhanrashi ka ekmusht bhugtaan kiya
jayega.

(ii) ****

(iii) ****

(iv) simit vittaya sansadhno ko
drishtigat rakhte hue, shikshan sansthano
mein adhyanrat chhatro ko anurakshan
bhatta evam shulk pratipurti ki dhanrashi
ka navinikaran evam taduprant naye
chhatro ko anurakshan bhatta evam shulk
pratipurti ki dhanrashi nimnankit variyata
kram mein budget ki uplabdhta ki seema
tak nirdharit avadhi mein online bhare
gaye aavedan patro mein se parta paye
gaye chhatra-chhatraon ko unke dwara
bank mein khole gaye bachat khate mein
sidhe antarit karke bhugtaan ki jayegi-

(ka)- kendra athwa rajya sarkaar
ke vibhago/nikayo dwara sanchalit rajkiya
shikshan
sansthano
va
rajkiya
swayatshashi shikshan sansthano mein
adhyanrat chhatra/chhatraye.