Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

This writ petition is filed by the petitioner, a Post-Graduate student at Stella Maris College, Chennai, seeking to declare that the clauses in Exts.P7 and P8 notifications stipulating that students pursuing Post Graduate studies in Kerala alone are eligible for renewal of scholarship for the fourth and fifth years respectively, are applicable only at the time of initial selection of students for grant of scholarship during the first year of Degree course and not for renewal of scholarship for Post-Graduate studies, and for other related and consequential reliefs. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows:

2. During January, 2010, the 3rd respondent, i.e., the Kerala State Higher Education Council, introduced 'the Higher Education Scholarship Scheme' produced along with a memo before this Court, with a view to attract meritorious students to the study of Arts, Science and Business Studies streams by giving scholarship for five years. The amount of scholarship for the first year is Rs.12,000/-, Rs.18,000/- for the second year, Rs.24,000/- in the third year, Rs.40,000/-

12. I have evaluated the rival submissions made across the Bar. The question remains to be considered is, whether any manner of arbitrariness or illegality is remaining with Exts.P7 and P8 notifications issued by the Higher Education Council, circumscribing the entitlement of scholarship to students pursuing their studies in recognised Aided colleges. In my considered view, Exts.P7 and P8 notifications are consequential notifications following the guidelines prescribed for availing the scholarship by a meritorious student. In the fact discussion made above, the scope and extent of scholarship was discussed, and it was clearly enumerated in the guidelines that only students pursuing their studies 'within the State' are entitled to the scholarships.

15. Therefore, taking into account the attendant circumstances as discussed above, it cannot be said that the distinction drawn to provide scholarships to students pursuing their studies 'within the State', under the guidelines, is irrational, illegal or arbitrary, and there is no unfair classification done among the students. Moreover, when the petitioner applied for the scholarship itself, it was clear as per the guidelines that the intention of the Council is to provide scholarship to meritorious students 'within the State', and the other intention of the Council was to extend the scholarship to students pursuing their studies outside the State, if and when funds are made available through endowments. The said stipulation contained under the guidelines cannot be said to be a right accrued to the petitioner to claim scholarship for pursuing her studies outside the State. It is only a hope, gesture and aspiration put forth by the Council in the guidelines, and no manner of right can be claimed by the petitioner relying upon and founded on the said provision.