Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati
Palla Sriya vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 9 July, 2024
APHC010620082023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI [3330]
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
TUESDAY, THE NINTH DAY OF JULY
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FOUR
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO
WRIT PETITION No: 32096/2023
Between:
Palla Sriya ...PETITIONER
AND
The State Of Andhra Pradesh and Others ...RESPONDENT(S)
Counsel for the Petitioner:
1. Y BALAJI
Counsel for the Respondent(S):
1. GP FOR EDUCATION
2. G JHANSI
The Court made the following:
2
ORDER:
This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:-
"To issue a writ or order or direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus challenging the Notification, dated: 13.07.2022 in particularly "SRM University - AP- CSE - Scholarship Criteria" imposing a Condition that a Student must be completed the Intermediate Course from the CBSE/ICSE and Low GER State Boards under the Notification, dated:
13.07.2022 for Admission issued by the 2nd Respondent/SRM University of Science and Technology for the Academic Year 2022-2023, which is illegal, arbitrary, negation, discriminatory and ultra-vires and also violation of Article 14, 16 & 21 of Constitution of India and consequently, set aside the same and direct the 2nd Respondent to grant the Scholarship under Category-A Criteria - 90% for the B.Tech - Engineering Course to the Petitioner and pass such other orders."
2. The short grievance of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition is that not granting scholarship by the 2nd respondent-SRM University of Science and Technology.
3. The 2nd respondent-University is a private university, established under the Establishment and Regulations Act, 2016, to promote education in the State and give more admissions, opportunities and scholarships to students of Andhra Pradesh. The 2nd respondent- university issued notification inviting applications for admissions in the Engineering Courses and the petitioner was given admission in the 3 branch of specialization in B.Tech., Computer Science Engineering with Specialization Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning (UG-FULL TIME) C.S.E. The petitioner herein has paid the fee as per the regulations of the 2nd respondent-university. The petitioner herein has made a request for grant of scholarship and accordingly she made a representation to the 2nd respondent-university and got filed W.P.No.33764 of 2022 and this Court, vide order dated 28.11.2023, has dismissed the Writ Petition giving liberty to the petitioner to file fresh Writ Petition.
4. As such, the present Writ Petition came to be filed assailing the condition in the notification for grant of scholarship and the relevant portion of the condition is hereby extracted hereunder:
SRM AP Percentage of Phase 3 Rank
12th Std. Board
Scholarship Scholarship Range$
Category A 90% CBSE/ICSE/Other 66 to 1000
Scholarship Low GER State
Boards
5. It is the contention of the petitioner herein that fixing the condition for grant of scholarship is arbitrary, illegal and bias, where the petitioner herein is a meritorious student and she also obtained certificates in the national and international level in sports category and therefore not granting scholarship is arbitrary and discrimination and therefore prayed to declare the condition imposed in the notification as illegal and arbitrary and relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in 4 Dev Gupta v. PEC University of Technology & others1, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred its earlier judgment, which reads thus:
"It has also been held, in State of J&K v. Triloki Nath Khosa, 1974 1 SCR 771 that "the object to be achieved" should not be "a mere pretence for an indiscriminate imposition of inequalities and the classification" should not be "characterized as arbitrary or absurd".
The judgment in Venkateshwara Theatre v. State of A.P., 1993 3 SCR 616 is a decision where this court pointed out, to how discrimination arises, if persons who are unequals are treated as equals, thus:
"Just as a difference in the treatment of persons similarly situate leads to discrimination, so also discrimination can arise in persons who are unequals, i.e., differently placed, are treated similarly. ... A law providing for equal treatment of unequal objects, transactions or persons would be condemned as discriminatory if there is absence of rational relation to the object intended to be achieved by the law"."
6. As seen from the notification, the 2nd respondent-university has imposed the following conditions for grant of scholarship:
CBSE / ICSE / Other Low GER State Boards' Include:
1. Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) OR
2. Council of Indian School Certificate Examination (CISCE/ISC) OR
3. State Boards of the below shown states / union territories.
In an effort to promote higher education in India, the below states have been selected on the basis of having Gross Enrolment Ratio 1 AIR 2023 SC 3723 5 below 35% as per Economic Survey data, 2021-22 released by the Ministry of Finance, GoI.
S.No. Education Board
1. CENTRAL BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION (CBSE)
2. COUNCIL OF INDIA SCHOOL CERTIFICATE EXAMINATION (CISCE/ISC)
3. ASSAM HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION COUNCIL
4. BIHAR INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION COUNCIL.
5. BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD
7. The scheme adopted by the 2nd respondent-university is also hereby extracted for better appreciation of the case.
SRM Institute of Science and Technology (SRMIST) offers several Scholarships, fee waiver schemes, concessions to meritorious and deserving students. Large number of students tremendously benefit from such schemes. The scholarship program is a transparent merit based process. In subsequent years, the scholarship is subject to consistent high performance as per the norms set by the university from time to time.
The following are the entry level scholarship schemes of SRMIST.
1) Founder's Scholarship a. Top 100 rank in SRMJEEE (UG) b. Top 10,000 rank in IIT JEE (Mains) c. State first rank in HSC of respective state boards or CBSE within India.
d. District topper in HSC in Tamil Nadu State Board or CBSE within Tamil Nadu.
e. Exemplary sports persons representing University / District (Province) / Zone/State/National/ International.
62) SRM Merit Scholarship.
a. Top 3000 rank in SRMJEEE (UG) b. HSC Merit Scholarship.
3) SRM Arts and Culture Scholarship.
4) Differently Abled Scholarship.
8. The 2nd respondent-university has filed its counter denying the averments made in the writ affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, inter alia, contending that SRMJEEE stands for SRM Joint Engineering Entrance Examination and the exams are conducted for admissions to various undergraduate engineering programs offered by the 2nd respondent-university and the university is following the procedure mentioned for sanctioning scholarships to its students which has been sub-divided into the following: (a) Founder scholarship and (b) Merit scholarship. To the merit fees (Remove merit Scholarship) merit-based fee there are further four categories: (i) Category A (90%), (ii) Category B (75%), (iii) Category C (50%) and (iv) Category D (25%) and one of the condition for grant of scholarship is Gross Enrolment Ratio, to determine the number of students enrolled in school, at several different grade levels (like elementary, middle school and high school) and that officially corresponds to that education level and the list of States is based on the Economic Survey Data, 2021-22 released by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. The terms and conditions for grant of scholarship by the 2nd respondent-university is valid under law as the 2nd respondent-university had followed all the requisite procedures and prescriptions of the Government and the petitioner has done her 12 th class from Andhra Pradesh, which is not within the Low GER State.
7Thus she is not eligible for category A scholarship in the 2nd respondent- university and in this regard, number of representations were received by the university and the same were placed before the committee and the committee has negatived the request made by the petitioner and the same was communicated to the petitioner and the procedure adopted by the 2nd respondent-university is in compliance of Articles 14, 38 and 46 of the Constitution of India and the equality of law runs on the administrative principle of rule of law which puts forward the following essentials which has also been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in multiple occasions:
(a) Supremacy of Law: lack of arbitrariness or wide discretionary power in a rule or order.
(b) Equality before law: all persons to be treated equally without discrimination before law.
(c) Predominance of the legal spirit: infringement or fundamental or legal rights of citizen.
9. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-university admitted that the State Government has granted land for the establishment of the college and accordingly 35% of the seats were given as Convener quota to the State Government and also they are collecting fees as prescribed by the State Government and it is also contended that they have not contravened any provision of law and that there is no statutory right for the petitioner to claim scholarship and hence prayed to dismiss the Writ Petition.
810. Heard Sri Y.Balaji, learned counsel for the petitioner and Smt. G.Jhansi, leaned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent- university.
11. At the outset, the request made for grant of scholarship to the petitioner was not considered on the ground that the State of Andhra Pradesh does not fall under the Gross Enrolment Ratio below 35% as per the Economic Survey Data, 2021-22 released by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India. A high GER generally indicates a high degree of participation, whether the pupils belong to the official age group or not.
12. University has incorporated a clause in the notification to grant scholarships to the students where the Gross Enrolment Ratio should be less than 35% in a state. As per the report of the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, the GER is more than the 37.6% in Andhra Pradesh. Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) means Gross enrolment ratio (GER) or gross enrolment index (GEI) is a statistical measure used in the education sector, to determine the number of students enrolled in school at several different grade levels (like elementary, middle school and high school) or Gross Enrolment Ratio or GER, at higher education level, is the ratio of people enrolled in higher education to the population in the age group of 18-23.
13. In Ekta Shakti Foundation v. Govt. of Nct of Delhi2, wherein it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that while exercising the power of judicial review of administrative action, the Court is not the 2 (2006) 10 SCC 337 = AIR 2006 SC 2609 9 appellate authority and the Constitution does not permit the Court to direct or advise the executive in matter of policy or to sermonize any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of the Legislature or the executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory power.
14. In State of Haryana & Ors. v. Ram Kumar Mann3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the doctrine of discrimination is founded upon existence of an enforceable right.
15. The judgment relied by the petitioner is not applicable to the present facts of the case, in view of the judgment referred by this Court.
16. Learned counsel for the respondent-university has relied on the following judgments:
(1) Sahi Ram v. Indian Agricultural Research Institute4. (2) Andhra Pradesh Private Schools Association (Regd-2014/2015) v. State of Andhra Pradesh5.
(3) Nagabhushan S. Dodamani v. The Vice Chancellor6. (4) The State of West Bengal v. Anwar All Sarkarhabib Mohammed7.
17. In the present case, there is no enforceable right obligated to the university to grant scholarships in accordance with the scholarships scheme and conditions and no right is vested on the petitioner.
3(1997) 3 SCC 321 4 2011 SCC Online Delhi 307 5 2023 SCC Online AP 546 6 C/w. W.P.No.112146 of 2017 and batch dated 15.12.2017 of Karnataka High Court 7 AIR 1952 SC 75 10
18. University, who is providing education, ordinarily prerogative to prescribe eligibility conditions & qualifications for sanction of scholarships.
19. This position is fairly well settled by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of A.P. v. McDowell and Company8. It is not open to a Court to declare an enactment unconstitutional and void solely on the ground of unwise and harsh provisions or that it is supposed to violate some of the perceived natural, social economic or political rights of the citizen, unless it can be shown with satisfactory proof that such injustice is in fact prohibited or such rights guaranteed or protected by the Constitution.
20. In Mani Subrat Jain Etc vs State Of Haryana And Ors9, which was relied upon by learned counsel for the State Government, it is well- settled that a writ of mandamus is not a writ of course or a writ of right, but is, as a rule, discretionary. There must be a judicially enforceable right for the enforcement of which a mandamus will lie. The legal right to enforce the performance of a duty must be in the applicant himself. In general, therefore, the Court will only enforce the performance of statutory duties by public bodies on application of a person who can show that he has himself a legal right to insist on such performance.
21. The factum of discrimination has not been explained by the petitioner properly and the law is trite to the effect that if the discrimination of a person is not explained by the party, who has 8 AIR 1996 SC 1627 9 AIR 1977 SC 276 = (1977) 1 SCC 486 11 complaining such discrimination, then the said action cannot be treated as violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. And this court does not see discrimination inherent in the condition itself.
22. Therefore, for the aforesaid discussion, as no legal right is vested in the writ petitioner, the Writ Petition fails and, accordingly, it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.
__________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 09.07.2024 siva 12 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO WRIT PETITION No.32096 OF 2023 Date: 09.07.2024 siva