9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (9) TMI 534X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 Res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... till September, 2010. The respondent made an online application on 12.07.2009 for availing of the Partial Funding of Foreign Study Scheme. He also sent a hard copy of his application to the Cadre Controlling Authority, namely, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT), Department of Revenue. The respondent claimed that his application remained pending with CBDT for almost two years. On 17.10.2011, the CBDT forwarded the same to the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Department of Personnel Training (DoP T). The petitioner granted study leave to the respondent for 668 days between 03.10.2011 to 31.07.2013. Consequently, the respondent proceeded to the University of Leicester to pursue the aforesaid course between 21.09.2011 to 29.06.2013. Subsequently, on 25.10.2012, the respondent was informed that his application for Partial Funding of Foreign Study had not been recommended by the Central Establishment Board (CEB). The reason given in this communication was that the University of Leicester does not fall in the top 100 university criteria as per the rankings, and is also not one of the 5 additional programmes/universities recommended by the petitioner-Cadr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said Scheme, he shall be granted partial funding assistance. Mr.Narula submits that a similar issue has been considered by the Supreme Court in Howrah Municipal Corpn. Others vs. Ganges Rope Co. Ltd. Others, (2004) 1 SCC 663 and State Of Kerala Anr vs M/S. B. Six Holiday Resorts (P). Ltd. etc., (2010) 5 SCC 186. In these cases, the Supreme Court examined as to which of the two building bye-laws would apply in respect of an application which is made for raising construction during the currency of the earlier bye-laws, but, by the time the application was considered, the amended bye-laws stood enforced. The Supreme Court held that on the date of making of the application, there were no vested right in the applicant to obtain sanction of building plans under the bye-laws, as they existed on the date of the application. The Supreme Court held that the amended bye-laws would govern the application, even if it were made when the earlier bye-laws were in force. He particularly relies on Para 37 of Howrah Municipal Corpn.(supra) which reads as follows:- 37. The argument advanced on the basis of so-called creation of vested right for obtaining sanction on the basis of the B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; cannot be countenanced against public interest and convenience which are sought to be served by amendment of the Building Rules and the resolution of the Corporation issued thereupon. 6. Similarly, he relied on Para 22 to 25 of the State of Kerala (supra), which read as follows:- 22. Where the Rule require grant of a licence subject to fulfillment of certain eligibility criteria either to safeguard public interest or to maintain efficiency in administration, it follows that the application for licence would require consideration and examination as to whether the eligibility conditions have been fulfilled or whether grant of further licences is in public interest. Where the applicant for licence does not have a vested interest for grant of licence and where grant of licence depends on various factors or eligibility criteria and public interest, the consideration should be with reference to the law applicable on the date when the authority considers applications for grant of licences and not with reference to the date of application. 23. The applicant submitted that it had originally filed an application on 11.12.2000 and in pursuance of the decision of the High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... has not received any intimation regarding the fate of his application. He requested for the Government s decision on this application, along with grounds for the decision. Mr.Narula submits that the respondent could not have remained under the impression that his application was decided in his favour. He was well aware that his application for partial funding made on 11.05.2011 was still pending consideration, wherein decision had not been taken. He submits that the respondent went on study leave to the foreign university even without obtaining the sanction for partial funding. He did so at his own peril, and the Tribunal was not justified in concluding that merely because the study leave had been sanctioned, the respondent also had reasonable grounds for believing that his partial funding application would also be accepted. 9. On the other hand, the submission of learned counsel for the respondent is that the petitioner took over two years to act on the respondent s application. The application had been initially made in the year 2009. That application was not acted upon for two years and only thereafter the study leave was sanctioned as aforesaid. Learned counsel submits that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taken at the ipse dixit of the Government. 13. The issue in the present case, however, does not rest here as the facts show that much before the Respondent s application for consideration under the Scheme was taken up, a modified Scheme dated 06.05.2011 had come into force. The Respondent, admittedly, did not fulfil the eligibility criteria laid down in the OM dated 06.05.2011 as the University of Leicester (UK) - where he had secured admission, neither figured in the list of top 100 universities as per THE (Times Higher Education World University) ranking, nor his course was recommended as one of the five additional programmes/Universities recommended by his Cadre Controlling Authority. The relevant para III(i) and (ii) of the OM dated 06.05.2011 reads as under:- III Institutes for which the eligible applicants would be supported: (i) Financial support may be extended to officers, who secure admission for a study programme in the foreign universities/institutions, which figure in the list of top 100 universities/institutions as per the THE (Times Higher Education World University) Ranking, published each year. (ii) In addition, each Cadre Controlling Authority ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g 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. 17. The Tribunal has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Diptimayee Parida(supra) and Alka Ojha (supra) to hold that since the Respondent had submitted his application for Partial Funding Assistance on 30.07.2009, his case ought to be considered as per the OM dated 17.03.2008, which was in vogue at the time of submission of his application. In our view, the reliance by the Tribunal on the aforesaid judgments of the Supreme Court is wholly misplaced, and the tribunal has failed to see the distinction between the cases relating to date of eligibility for public employment, and cases relating to consideration of appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
