"Illegality strikes at the root", Allahabad HC while dismissing plea by law students found ineligible to avail State Scholarship scheme

The Allahabad High Court on Friday dismissed a petition filed by two law students seeking directions for further payments under a State fee reimbursement and scholarship Scheme, on the ground that the scheme inapplicable to them to begin with. .In doing so, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Sangeeta Chandra reiterated that when an initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would stand vitiated.."It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, all subsequent and consequential proceedings would fall through for the reason that illegality strikes at the root of the order. In such a fact situation, the legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" meaning thereby that if foundation is removed, the super structure or the whole work falls come into play, and applies on all fours to the present case."Allahabad High Court.The case involved two petitioners who were admitted in the LL.B. Honours Five-years integrated Course in 2015, in City Academy Law College, Lucknow, which is a private unaided college affiliated to Lucknow University..The petitioners had moved the Court challenging an order of the District Social Welfare Officer, Lucknow that had rejected their representations for the grant of fee reiumbursement and scholarship under a State scheme. .The petitioners had received amounts under the scheme for some of their academic years, but not for all. They sought to avail the Scheme's benefit for the remaining academic sessions as well. .It was brought to the Court’s attention that the State of Uttar Pradesh had initiated a Scholarship Scheme, namely, the Uttar Pradesh Samanya Varg Dashmottar Chhattravritti Yojna, 2012 wherein it provided for the reimbursement of fee and also a scholarship to economically poor unreserved category students..The said Scheme of 2012 was amended by Government Order dated September 20, 2014 and, thereafter, by another Government Order issued on April 14, 2016..The amended Rule 5(xv)(Gha) of the Scheme was applicable to private and unaided colleges whose fees had not been determined by the competent authority, as was the case with the petitoners' college..Under the Scheme, eligible students of such colleges were entitled to the reimbursement of either the fees being charged for identical courses (except self-financed courses) by any State University or the fees actually deposited by the student in the college concerned or Rs.50,000/-, whichever was lower..Pertinently, amendments under the Scheme also laid that the same would only be applicable to students who obtained at least 60% marks in their intermediate exam (in this case, the Class 12th examination) for those students who took admission in unaided private institutions. The relevant Rule in this regard was Rule 6(i)(a) of the amended Scheme..The petitioners argued that since they took admission in the academic year 2015-16 under the Scheme of 2012 the amended Scheme was inapplicable to them. .However, the Court disagreed, ruling that the amended Scheme was made applicable for 2014 onwards. As such, the Judge ruled that the Scheme was inapplicable to the petitioners since they had only secured 58% and 57% marks respectively in their Intermediate Examinations..The Court explained that just because the petitioners were granted a fee waiver earlier due to wrong verification, they have no vested right to claim it again. ."There cannot be any Estoppel against the law. If the petitioners had been wrongly given fee reimbursement and scholarship earlier, due to wrong verification of their claims by the college authorities, it cannot be said that the petitioners have now a vested or accrued right to get such reimbursement as their case would be considered only for renewal and condition of initial eligibility cannot be seen.".The petitioners also relied on an order of the High Court passed in April, 2019 in Shounak Gupta versus Union of India and others wherein the Court was contended to have allowed full fee reimbursement to a similarly situated writ petitioner. .Justice Chandra, however, pointed out that the students in the instant case had been selected only on the basis of the marks obtained in their intermediate exam. That was not the case with other students who had obtained admission through entrance tests. .The petitioners could not be said to be similarly or identically placed to those students who had appeared in CLAT or any other Selection Test held by the Lucknow University, the Court said.."The petitioners are not similarly situated students as the candidates who qualify the Combined Law Aptitude Test (CLAT) Examinations or go through admission process determined by the University…There cannot be equality amongst unequals. Therefore, there cannot be any grievance of discrimination also."Allahabad High Court.While dismissing the petition, the Court held that the Lucknow University and the State Government were entitled to issue recovery notice to the Law College with respect to the fee reimbursement and scholarship erroneously given to the petitioners owing to wrong data being verified and locked digitally on the master database by the college..Read the Judgment here: