Rupa Saket v. University Grants Commission & ANR.
$~94 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 1609/2014, CM APPL. 3357/2014 & CM APPL. 6377/2015 RUPA SAKET .....Petitioner Through:
Mr. Abhishek Chauhan, Mr. Ajit Kumar Ekka, Mr. R.S.M. Kalky, Mr.
S.P. Singh, Mr. Ravi Shankar Singh, Advs.
versus UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION & ANR. .....Respondents Through:
Mr. Manoj Ranjan Sinha and Mr Vishal Agarwal, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
O R D E R
% 20.03.2026 1.
This is a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking the following prayers:- "(a) Summon the original records of the case; (b) Pass an appropriate order, direction, or writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ quashing of list of selected candidates belonging to SC category for award of fellowship for the year 2012-13, under the scheme of Rajiv Gandhi National Fellowship for SC/ST candidates [ANNEXURE P-2] issued by the Respondents, in the interest of justice and;
(c) Pass an appropriate order direction or writ in nature of The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the respondents to place the name of the petitioner in the merit list and the petitioner be awarded RGNF from the date of registration of the petitioner in M.Phil. course and the name of the petitioner be placed above the candidates who are ineligible/ lesser meritorious as per the RGNF scheme, in the interest of justice;
(d) Pass such other further order(s), as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case and in the interest of justice." 2.
In the present case, the facts are that the petitioner completed her M.Sc. (Botany) from Dr. Awadhesh Pratap Singh University, Rewa (MP) with first division having 75% marks. Her mark sheet is reproduced below:- The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
3. Thereafter, petitioner applied for M.Phil registration in subject of Botany with the University of Delhi and was selected for the same. In December, 2012, the petitioner applied for Rajiv Gandhi National Fellowship of SC & ST for the year 2012-13 vide application of December, 2012.
4. The respondent no.1/UGC declared the selection list, wherein the name of the petitioner was not present but the petitioner was surprised to note that candidates with less merit and candidates who were otherwise not eligible were granted the scholarship.
5. The petitioner thereafter filed the present petition.
6. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the UGC draws my attention to the minutes of the meeting dated 15.01.2023 & 16.01.2023, wherein para 3, 4, 5 and 6, read as under:- "3. Stream-wise/Subject-wise distribution of fellowship was made strictly in accordance with the communication received from Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment vide their D.O.No.11027/02/2007-SCD-V dated April 19, 2011. The slots so distributed were equally divided between Male and Female categories.
4. The distribution of fellowships across States and subject streams are given in Annexure-I. In such cases where there were not enough applicants in a subject stream/Gender category, the available slots were allotted to other subject stream/Gender within the same State Surplus slots remained unallotted in different states due to non-availability of applicants in that state. The decision with regard to their redistribution of surplus in each state was taken in proportion to The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
left out applicants by the Committee. In order to make equal distribution among male and female candidates, out of surplus fellowships were awarded to female category.
5. There were a total of 115 applications received from PH candidates against 60 seats reserved for them. 44 PH candidates were selected on merit basis.
6. Selection of the candidates for the award of fellowship was taken strictly on the basis of the merit of the examination results of the Postgraduate examination of the applicants. The most meritorious students of different subjects were selected to give wide representation of disciplines within the broad subject streams. The list of candidates so selected and recommended for the award of RGNF for the year 2012-13 for the Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes categories of applicants is given at Annexure-II."
7.
Thereafter, he draws my attention to the list of the fellowship and more particularly to serial no. 18 which reads as under:- The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
8.
He states that the petitioner did not meet the minimum cut off of 83.31% and hence was not considered for the scholarship. 9.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 10.
In the present case, as per the minutes of meeting, the scholarships were equally divided between male and female candidates. Additionally, as per para 4 surplus fellowship were to be awarded to female category. 11.
However, a perusal of mark sheet of one Mr. Rajendra Prasad Bharti, reads as under:- The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
12.
Despite securing 718 marks out of 1200 and placed in the second division in Botany Mr. Bharti was awarded the scholarship. In contrast, the petitioner, who secured 1096 marks out of 1450 and achieved a first division, was denied the scholarship.
13.
This outcome fails to satisfy the test of objectivity. As per the minutes of the meeting, scholarships are to be distributed in accordance with the merit of candidates. The petitioner, being more meritorious, ought not to have been overlooked in favour of a candidate with lower marks and a lower division.
14.
The contention regarding equal distribution between male and female candidates also appears to be unfounded. As per the Annexure P-2, 917 female candidates were awarded scholarships as against 1083 male candidates.
15.
In view of the above, the petitioner has made out a case for her entitlement to the Rajiv Gandhi National Fellowship for SC/ST candidates for the year 2012-13. That being said, it is also noted that the primary objective of the fellowship was to provide financial assistance to support a candidate's education. Given that more than 14 years have elapsed, the financial assistance may no longer serve its intended purpose. However, the conferment of the fellowship by UGC carries significant academic value and may aid the petitioner in securing further and better academic opportunities and benefits.
16.
Mr. Sinha, learned counsel also argues that in case the petitioner even is given the scholarship there would be a lot of candidates having percentage between 75 and 83 and it would be unfair to the petitioner to be granted the The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
relief.
17.
The same does not merit consideration in view of the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P. Jal Nigam v. Jaswant Singh, (2006) 11 SCC 464 more particularly in paragraphs 12 and 13 which read as under:- "12. The statement of law has also been summarised in Halsbury's Laws of England, para 911, p. 395 as follows: "In determining whether there has been such delay as to amount to laches, the chief points to be considered are: (i) acquiescence on the claimant's part; and (ii) any change of position that has occurred on the defendant's part.
Acquiescence in this sense does not mean standing by while the violation of a right is in progress, but assent after the violation has been completed and the claimant has become aware of it. It is unjust to give the claimant a remedy where, by his conduct, he has done that which might fairly be regarded as equivalent to a waiver of it; or where by his conduct and neglect, though not waiving the remedy, he has put the other party in a position in which it would not be reasonable to place him if the remedy were afterwards to be asserted. In such cases lapse of time and delay are most material. Upon these considerations rests the doctrine of laches."
13. In view of the statement of law as summarised above, the respondents are guilty since the respondents have acquiesced in accepting the retirement and did not challenge the same in time. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
If they would have been vigilant enough, they could have filed writ petitions as others did in the matter. Therefore, whenever it appears that the claimants lost time or whiled it away and did not rise to the occasion in time for filing the writ petitions, then in such cases, the court should be very slow in granting the relief to the incumbent. Secondly, it has also to be taken into consideration the question of acquiescence or waiver on the part of the incumbent whether other parties are going to be prejudiced if the relief is granted.
In the present case, if the respondents would have challenged their retirement being violative of the provisions of the Act, perhaps the Nigam could have taken appropriate steps to raise funds so as to meet the liability but by not asserting their rights the respondents have allowed time to pass and after a lapse of couple of years, they have filed writ petitions claiming the benefit for two years. That will definitely require the Nigam to raise funds which is going to have serious financial repercussions on the financial management of the Nigam. Why should the court come to the rescue of such persons when they themselves are guilty of waiver and acquiescence?"
(Emphasis added) 18.
No other candidate has come before the Court urging his/her rights and hence it can be said that the other candidates have deemed to acquiesce the list prepared by the respondent no. 1.
19.
For the said reasons, the petition is allowed. In case the petitioner meets all other eligibility criteria, the petitioner shall be granted Rajiv The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
Gandhi National Fellowship for SC & ST candidate for the year 2012 only with respect to the title.
20.
The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. JASMEET SINGH, J MARCH 20, 2026/NG The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.