Kumar Meena v. Mohit Jitendra Kukadia

1. Present appeal has been filed challenging the judgement dated 30th August, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) NO. 11041/2024. The learned Single Judge has allowed the petition filed by the respondent herein, and directed the appellant/ministry to process the respondent’s application for scholarship within a period of two weeks.

2. It is pertinent to mention that the respondent herein had submitted an application to the appellant/ministry to avail the Central Sector Scholarship Scheme of National Overseas Scholarship (“NOS”) and the same was rejected vide communication dated 19th July, 2024 on the ground that the respondent had erroneously uploaded the Income Tax Return computation document instead of the required Income Tax Acceptance Document while submitting the application. The learned Single Judge has held that a hypertechnical approach cannot be adopted in such cases, and a mere discrepancy of filing the incorrect document (the ITR return instead of the ITR Acceptance document) should not result in an eligible and meritorious candidate being deprived of the NOS.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant states that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that only a limited number of seats are available for the NOS and accommodating the respondent may result in exclusion of another candidate. He also states that forty (40) other applicants for the NOS were disqualified on the same ground, i.e., non-submission of ITR acceptance document, and granting the NOS to the respondent herein may lead to the other applicants also engaging in litigation.

4. He emphasizes that the respondent had applied for NOS in a category in which four seats were available and as to today, four candidates have been awarded the Certificate of NOS under landless labourers and artisans from notified tribes category. He seeks guidance as to which of the four candidates has to be denied the NOS.

5. Having perused the paper book, this Court finds that the list of documents required to be submitted by the applicant/respondent at the application stage included “Income Tax Acceptance Document”. This Court is of the view that the expression “Income Tax Acceptance Document” is vague, inasmuch as, it has no legal import and/or legal sanctity attached to it. The appellant should have either asked for an Income Tax Return Acknowledgment document or for an assessment order accepting the Return filed by the applicant/respondent.

6. This Court also finds that as per para 8(e) of the NOS Guidelines, any grievance with regard to the results of the NOS, could be raised within thirty days from the publication of the result. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent had made multiple representations along with the documents required by the appellant i.e. the Income Tax Return and explaining the alleged error within the said time period, whereas the appellant did not respond to any of the representations.

7. Further, the learned Single Judge has correctly held that as the submitted documents did not contain any discrepancies and there was only a minor procedural error in uploading an incorrect document, therefore, a hyper-technical approach must be avoided in such cases. The learned Single judge has rightly held that the purpose of such schemes must not be undermined by overly rigid interpretations of procedural requirements.

8. There is also no dispute as to the authenticity of the said documents, which shows the eligibility of the respondent to avail the NOS. In fact, in response to a pointed query, learned counsel for the appellant admits that amongst all the candidates, the respondent is more meritorious in view of the university opted for by the respondent.

9. Needless to state that since the learned Single Judge has not created a supernumerary seat, the candidate who is the least meritorious amongst the four candidates, who have been awarded the NOS, shall have to give way to the respondent-petitioner.

10. Consequently, this Court finds no error in the impugned order. Accordingly, the present appeal along with the applications is dismissed.

ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J SEPTEMBER 23, 2024