Doongara Ram Poonia v. All India Council For Technical Education & ORS.

$~69 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 3672/2026 & CM APPL. 17893/2026 DOONGARA RAM POONIA .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Vinayak Bhandari, Mr. Ishaan Phukan, Advs.

versus ALL INDIA COUNCIL FOR TECHNICAL EDUCATION & ORS. .....Respondents Through:

Ms.

Pearl Sharma, Adv.

for R-1/AICTE Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, SC GNCTD Services with Mr.

Nitesh Kumar Singh, Ms. Aliza Alam, Mr. Mohnish Sehrawat, Advs.

Ms.

Gauri Goburdhun, SPC for R-3&6/ UOI Mr.

Santosh Kumar, Mr.

Ritik Dwivedi, Advs. for R-4 Mr. B.S.Rawat CI DTTE, Adv. for R-6

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH

O R D E R

% 23.03.2026

1. This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:

a. Issue a writ of mandamus, or any other writ, order or direction of like nature directing the release of the pending arrears of Rs. 45,000 to the Petitioner along with interest @12%.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

b. Pass an order awarding costs to the Petitioner..."

2. The petitioner was an OBC candidate in the Master of Engineering programme at the Delhi Technological University- Batch 2007 to 2009. The petitioner by filing this writ petition is seeking benefit of enhanced GATE PG Scholarship granted by the respondent No. 1 for the from the year 2007 to 2009 from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 8,000/-.

3. Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner, states that the petitioner has been representing to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 ever since the notification for revision of research fellowship was published. It is only on 16.12.2025, (Annexure P-20) that respondent No. 2 wrote to the respondent No. 1 that respondent No. 1 has not provided any details regarding submission of enhanced scholarship, with a copy marked to the petitioner and hence, that is the date when the cause of action accrued in favour of the petitioner.

4. I have heard Mr. Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioner.

5. In the present case, admittedly, the petitioner is seeking enhanced amount of scholarship from the year 2007 to 2009, the cause of action, if any, arose in favour of the petitioner in the year 2009 or 3 years thereafter, the mere fact that the petitioner has been repeatedly writing to respondent Nos. 1 and 2 does not extend the period of limitation for staking a claim for enhanced scholarship amount.

6. Additionally, the letter dated 16.12.2025, is reproduced as under: The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

7.

A perusa al of the said letter only shows that no details have been provided by respondent No. 1 to respondent N No. 2 and to my mind, does not extend the period limitation or make s a cause of action in The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

favour of the petitioner.

8.

For the said reasons, the petition is dismissed for delay and laches. JASMEET SINGH, J MARCH 23, 2026/sp The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.