MOHIT SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner an Australian Citizen and an Overseas Citizen of India (OCI) has filed the present petition, inter alia, praying that the respondent be directed to provide scholarship to the petitioner for the remainder of his undergraduate course in National Institute of Technology, New Delhi, in terms of the Scholarship Programme for Diaspora Children (hereafter "SPDC Scheme"). The petitioner was disbursed the grant under the SPDC Scheme for the first year of the course but has been denied the same for the second year on the ground that the petitioner's parents are residing in India and he does not qualify the eligibility criteria under the Guidelines for the SPDC Scheme. The petitioner disputes that the aforesaid criteria is applicable. According to the petitioner, he was admitted to the benefits of the SPDC Scheme in the year 2016-17 and, therefore, the Guidelines as applicable for the said year would continue to be applicable for the full term of his undergraduate course. He further contends that being a non-resident was not a criteria for grant of scholarship under the SPDC Scheme.

(2.) The aforesaid controversy arises in the context of the facts as set out below:-

(3.) Ms Maninder Acharya, learned ASG contended that the entire objective of the SPDC Scheme was to provide scholarship for NRIs or PIOs, who are residing overseas in order to facilitate a bond between those persons and India. She submitted that the SPDC Scheme was not available for persons residing in India. She referred to the "Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) relating to Scholarship Programme for Diaspora Children Portal" as published on the website of MEA and referred to the answer to question no.5 of the FAQs in support of the aforesaid contention. She also relied on the sub-paragraph 4.3 of the 2016-17 SPDC Guidelines and contended that one of the qualifying criteria is that the candidates must have passed the Senior Secondary (10+2) or equivalent examination from a system of education recognized by the Association of Indian Universities. She submitted that SPDC Scheme would not be applicable where the candidates had passed a qualifying examination in India. Lastly, she relied on Clause 4.4 of the 2016-17 SPDC Guidelines, which require parents of a candidate to submit the income tax return attested by the Indian Mission/Consulate to establish that their monthly income did not exceed US$ 2250. She submitted that the petitioner had failed to fulfill the said criteria, as the income tax returns submitted by the petitioner's parents were not attested by the Indian Mission/Consulate. She submitted that an Indian Mission/Consulate would only certify income tax return of persons residing overseas and, therefore, this condition implied that the candidates/their parents should be residing outside India.