2017 (9) TMI 534 - HC - Indian Laws

Sanction of financial assistance to the respondent under the Partial Funding of Foreign Study Scheme - Held that - It clearly emerges that despite the Respondent, having no reason to believe, that he would most certainly get financial support, he chose to proceed abroad for undertaking the LLB (Senior Status) Course, in the University of Leicester, immediately upon sanction of his study leave. Obviously, the Respondent did so with open eyes, and while remaining fully conscious that in case his application is rejected, he would have to foot the bill on his own. The next undisputed fact which emerges from the record, is that when the Respondent s application for grant of financial support was considered by the Petitioner, the modified Scheme introduced vide OM dated 06.05.2011 was already enforced, and the Respondent s case was not covered by the said Scheme. Therefore, we find force in the arguments raised by Mr.Narula, that on the crucial date when the Respondent s application was considered, his case was admittedly not covered by the then prevalent Scheme. The Petitioner was, therefore, fully justified in not granting financial support to the Respondent, as by the said date, the guidelines which had come into force clearly stated that to be eligible for financial support, the Officer had to secure admission for a study programme in foreign university/institution which figures in the list of top 100 universities. That being the position, the Respondent cannot claim that his case ought to have been considered in terms of the earlier policy dated 17.03.2008, merely because he had submitted an application before 06.05.2011 i.e. before the new policy came into force. We also find from the record that the Respondent, much after having already left for undertaking the course in October, 2011, had, vide his letter dated 30.08.2012, asked for information regarding the status of his application for partial funding of his course made in 2011. This letter clearly shows that as late as in August 2012, there was nothing to assure the Respondent that his case for financial support/partial funding had been considered, or was being considered favourably. We are of the view that the Tribunal has clearly erred in coming to a conclusion that upon sanction of a study leave, the Respondent had reason to believe that his application for Partial Funding assistance was being considered favourably. We are unable to find any basis for this presumption by the Tribunal.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Eligibility criteria for financial assistance under the "Partial Funding of Foreign Study Scheme".
2. Determination of the relevant date for assessing eligibility.
3. The impact of amended guidelines on pending applications.
4. The respondent's expectations based on study leave sanction.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Eligibility Criteria for Financial Assistance:
The petitioner-Union of India challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal's order directing financial assistance to the respondent under the "Partial Funding of Foreign Study Scheme". The respondent, an IRS officer, sought financial support for an LLB course at the University of Leicester, UK. The original scheme (OM dated 17.03.2008) provided financial support to officers admitted to top 200 universities as per THES-QS rankings. However, the scheme was amended on 06.05.2011, restricting financial support to top 100 universities.

2. Determination of the Relevant Date for Assessing Eligibility:
The Tribunal ruled that the eligibility should be based on the date of application (2009), under the original scheme. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that the eligibility criteria applicable at the time of consideration of the application (post-06.05.2011) should prevail. The court emphasized that the scheme did not confer a vested right to financial support merely upon fulfilling eligibility criteria.

3. Impact of Amended Guidelines on Pending Applications:
The High Court referenced Supreme Court judgments in *Howrah Municipal Corpn. & Others vs. Ganges Rope Co. Ltd. & Others* and *State Of Kerala & Anr vs M/S. B. Six Holiday Resorts (P). Ltd.*, which held that amended rules apply to pending applications. The court concluded that the respondent's application, considered after the 06.05.2011 amendment, did not meet the new eligibility criteria, thus justifying the rejection of financial support.

4. Respondent's Expectations Based on Study Leave Sanction:
The Tribunal's assumption that the respondent had reason to believe his financial support application was favorably considered due to the study leave sanction was rejected. The court noted that the study leave sanction did not imply approval of financial support. The respondent proceeded with his studies at his own risk, aware that his application for financial support was pending and not assured.

Conclusion:
The High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, ruling that the relevant date for determining eligibility was when the application was considered, not when it was submitted. The amended scheme dated 06.05.2011, which required admission to a top 100 university, was applicable. The respondent did not meet these criteria, and thus, the rejection of financial support was justified. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.