Unequal Scholarship To School Without Reasons Reflects Discrimination: AP High Court Asks State To Reconsider Sanctioned Amount

Highlighting that no reasons were accorded explaining the denial of the full scholarship amount of Rs.20,000 per student to the petitioner school, despite a favorable recommendation by the District Level Committee (DLC), Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda held,

“Even according to principles of natural justice, the authorities must disclose reasons for arriving at such conclusion and it is only to enable the person to know the reason for passing any adverse order against him. When the decision taken by the respondents is arbitrary, such action can be struck down on the ground of arbitrariness as it is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The word “Arbitrariness‟ is the quality of being “determined by chance, whim, or impulse, and not by necessity, reason, or principle”. Article 14 of the Indian Constitution guarantees to every citizen the Right to Equality. It applies the principle of Equality before the law and prohibits unreasonable discrimination between persons.”

The Court added,

“…since the petitioners fall under the category of Best Available Schools, the respondents are directed to consider the petitioners schools for enhancement of pre-matric scholarship amount under Best Available Schools Scheme and enhance the amount of Rs.15,000/- to Classes III & IV; Rs.20,000/- to Class V to X per student per annum, on par with other Best Available Schools. The respondents shall pay the arrears to the petitioners' schools along with interest @ 6% per annum, within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order.”

Background

The direction of the Court came in response to a writ petition filed by the petitioner school, which was selected as the BAS in Nellore District, challenging the discriminatory allocation of scholarship funds under the BAS Scheme.

The pre-matric scholarship given by the State of Andhra Pradesh offered Rs.20,000/- per year per student which intended to cover expenses for textbooks, stationery, shelter, food, and overall education and boarding. While the petitioner had registered with the DLC to offer high-quality education and hostels to underprivileged tribal students from Class V to X, they were allocated between Rs. 8,000/- and Rs.20,000/- at the discretion of the authorities, as opposed to the prescribed full scholarship amount of Rs.20,000/- which was received by other schools. This was done despite the recommendation given by the DLC confirming that the petitioner school was maintaining the standards stipulated by the BAS Scheme. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the writ petition.

The petitioner alleged that the exclusion of petitioner from the list of schools declared as BAS, for enhancing the pre-matric scholarship amount under scheme on par with other schools, was discriminatory, unconstitutional and in contravention to Article 14 of the Constitution.

The respondent authorities countered by stating that the scholarships were sanctioned after thorough verification and as recommended by the DLC by considering the standards in all aspects without any discrimination by the concerned authorities from time to time. It was also submitted that though the DLC recommended enhancement of pre-matric scholarship amount under BAS, the State Level Committee (SLC) had not recommended enhancement of fee.

Findings:

At the outset, the Court noted that the petitioner was alleged to not have reached the standards as contemplated by Clause VII 1(a) of the G.O.Ms.No.70 dated 01.08.2001 (the GO), and as such, the SLC did not approve fixing Rs.20,000/- in respect of the petitioners schools on par with BAS scheme schools. Clause VII 1(a) of the GO further provided that the amount of scholarship payable beyond Rs.8,000/- and Rs.12,000/ will be decided by the SLC.

The Court highlighted that the SLC had noted discrepancies in data submitted by the DLCs and proposed reconciling student-wise payment figures. Owing to the rising costs of essentials and rent, the SLC approved an enhanced fee structure. Moreover, a list of 108 schools recommended for renewal and fee enhancement was annexed. While the counter affidavit claimed that the petitioner did not meet institutional standards under Clause VII 1(a), the remarks column for the petitioner was left blank and the minutes did not assign any reasons for this conclusion. In contrast, specific reasons were given for enhancing fees in other cases where an additional Rs.20,000/- per student annually for Classes V to X was granted.

Relying on the case of E.P. Royappa vs. State of Tamil Nadu [(1974) 4 SCC 3] and Ajay Hasia v. Khalid Mujib Sehravardi [(1981) 1 SCC 722], the Court observed that the act of the concerned authorities in not recording reasons for denial of full scholarship constituted a violation of the principle of natural justice and contravened the equality clause of Article 14. Additionally, as the petitioners fell under the category of BAS, the Court directed the respondents to consider them for enhancement of pre-matric scholarship on par with other BAS.

The petition was accordingly disposed of.

Case Details:

Case Number: WRIT PETITION No.27468 OF 2013

Case Title: M/s Chaitanya High School v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh

Click Here To Read/Download Order