Karnataka High Court
Ms Smitha P V vs The State Of Karnataka on 4 January, 2021
Author: R Devdas
Bench: R Devdas
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON' BLE MR.JUSTICE R DEVDAS
WRIT PETITION NO.36246 OF 2015(GM-RES)
BETWEEN
MS SMITHA P V
D/O SRI VASANTHA KUMAR V
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI VASANTHA KUMAR V
S/O SRI VENKATEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
RESIDENT OF HEBBALE VILLAGE
ARKALGUD TALUK-573 102
HASSAN DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI CHETHAN B, ADVOCATE)
AND
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF BACKWARD CLASSES
WELFARE DEPARTMENT
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
REPRESENTED BY CHIEF SECRETARY
2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF BACKWARD CLASSES
WELFARE DEPARTMENT
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560 001
-2-
3. THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF BACKWARD CLASSES
WELFARE DEPARTMENT
NO.16-D, 3RD FLOOR
D DEVARAKA URS BHAVANA
VASANTHNAGAR
BANGALORE-560 052
4. PARISHITH K P
MAJOR
NO.291, 3RD CORSS
CHAMUNDESHWARINAGAR
MANDYA TOWN-571401
MANDYA DISTRICT.
5. SHILPA GOWDA M
D/O PUTTAMMA
MAJOR
RESIDENT OF MARUTHINAGARA
TEGUR GATE, TEGUR POST
CHIKMAGALUR-577 101
6. MANU KUMAR G
MAJOR
NO.55, 7TH CROSS I MAIN
KSRTC LAYOUT
MAHADESHWARANAGAR
BANGALORE-560 091.
7. NARENDRA L V
S/O VENKATE REDDY
MAJOR
RESIDENT OF LAGUMADDEPALLI
KASABA HOBLI
BAGEPALLI TALUK-561 207
CHIKBALLAPUR DISTRICT
8. DIVYASHREE S S
MAJOR
NO.160, 2ND A CROSS
7TH BLOCK, 2ND STAGE
-3-
NAGARABHAVI
BANGALORE-560 072.
9. KAVYSHREE P
MAJOR
NO.311, 4 AC EAST OF NGEF
KASTURINAGAR
RAMAMURTHINAGAR MAIN ROAD
BANGALORE-560 016.
10 . KEERTHI R
MAJOR
NO.45, I CROSS, 9TH B MAIN
BYRAVESHWARANAGAR
NAGARABHAVI
BANGALORE-560 072
11 . POORNIMA NAGESH
MAJOR
NO.1249, I MAIN
2ND CROSS
KRISHNAMURTHYPURAM
MYSORE-570 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI SRIDHAR N HEGDE, HCGP FOR R1 TO R3
SRI CHANDRANNA N, ADVOCATE FOR R6
SRI NIKHIL D KAMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R4
R5,R7,R8,R11 ARE SERVED
NOTICE TO R9 & R10 ARE DISPENSED WITH)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND
227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE
LIST OF SELECTED CANDIDATES OF CATEGORY-3A, IN SO FAR
R-4 TO 11 HEREIN AS PER ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION IS COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING IN 'B' GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:
-4-
ORDER
R. DEVDAS J., (ORAL):
The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the list of selected candidates in category-3A, insofar as respondents No.4 to 11 at Annexure 'A' are concerned. A prayer is also made seeking a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the representation dated 11.08.2015 at Annexure 'B', to extend financial benefits earmarked for backward class candidates to pursue their studies in foreign countries.
2. The Government of India formulated a scheme for providing scholarship to 100 students belonging to the backward classes community under four categories - category 1, 2A, 3A and 3B. For the said purpose, a sum of Rs.10 crores was reserved under the scheme. The scheme started for the academic year 2015-2016 and applications were called for. The petitioner also made an application seeking the scholarship since she intended to pursue her higher studies of Graduation in Electrical Engineering at Southern California (USC University). Nevertheless when the details of the -5- selected candidates were announced in terms of Annexure 'A', the name of the petitioner was not found amongst the selected candidates of Engineering and Technology. Therefore, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
3. During the course of these proceedings, the respondent-State Government was directed to furnish certain information as to when the petitioner traveled to U.S.A for her studies. This was required in view of the assertion of the respondent-State Government that the scheme was in fact started for the first time in the year 2015, for enabling the students to pursue their academic year 2015-2016. The Deputy Director of Backward Classes and Welfare Department filed an affidavit dated 29.09.2015 stating that the petitioner is said to have traveled to United States of America on 19.12.2014 and she was required to join the course at the University on 12.01.2015. As per the schedule of the courses, the course was only for one year and the petitioner would complete her studies on 12.04.2016.
4. The learned HCGP therefore submits that the scheme having opened for the first time in the year 2015, the -6- petitioner who had already traveled to United States of America to pursue her studies in the month of December 2014 could not have applied seeking the scholarship. At this juncture, learned Counsel for the petitioner draws the attention of this Court to the statement of objections filed by the respondent-State, to submit that it has been admitted by the respondent-State that the benefit of the scheme was also extended to students who pursued their studies in the year 2014-2015 and therefore the State cannot contend that the benefit cannot be given to the petitioner.
5. Heard the learned Counsels and perused the petition papers.
6. No doubt a statement has been made in the objections filed by the respondent-State that though the scheme was opened in the year 2015 and the scholarship was reserved for 100 candidates belonging to the backward classes community, the eligible candidates were less than 100 in number and therefore the committee decided to extend the benefit to students who had pursued their studies in the year 2014-2015. But it is hasten to add that such benefit was to -7- be given only to students belonging to category-1 and 2A who were amongst the most backward classes. It has been stated in the objections that the petitioner belongs to 3A category and therefore the benefit could not be extended to the petitioner.
7. Nevertheless, this writ petition was filed on 25.08.2015 and by April 2016 the petitioner has completed her studies. It would also mean that the petitioner has been able to successfully meet the expenses. The scholarship was meant to be given to students who were pursuing their studies.
8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the scholarship which was meant to facilitate the studies of students in the year 2015-2016, cannot be extended to the petitioner at this point of time.
For the foregoing reasons, the petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE JT/-