V V NARAYANAN Vs. DEPUTY WELFARE COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is the guardian of two children, namely Nithinraj. K.K. and Nithisha Narayanan, who were studying in the 2nd respondent's school during the Academic year 2007-2008. Issue involved in this writ petition relates to rejection of claim for financial assistance for education provided under Ext. P1 scheme formulated by the Central Government which envisages financial assistance for education to the children of "Beedi workers", to be disbursed on the recommendation of the head of the educational institutions. Relevant portion of the Ext. P1 scheme dealing with the procedure for grant of such financial assistance is extracted below:

(2.) Based on Ext. P1 scheme, the petitioner had submitted application with respect to both his children in the prescribed proforma, before the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent had forwarded the said application along with applications of other students and a statement prepared in the prescribed format as evidenced from Ext. P3. It is stated that the financial assistance was sanctioned and disbursed on the basis of Exts. P2, P2(a) and P3 with respect to the year 2006-2007. Likewise, with respect to the year 2007-2008 the 2nd respondent had forwarded Ext. P6 statement (annual recommendation statement) in the case of those beneficiaries who had already received financial assistance for the year 2006-2007. So also Ext. P7 was forwarded with respect to the fresh beneficiaries enclosing their applications. But the 1st respondent had sanctioned only the fresh applications forwarded under Ext. P7, but rejected continued grant of financial assistance to those who were granted such benefits during the year 2006-2007. Responding to enquiries made by the Headmaster, the 1st respondent had issued Ext. P12 reply stating that the recommendation statements for continued grant of financial assistance was not considered only because it is found that the signature of each student required under the statement was not appended.

(3.) The petitioner contended that, the recommendation statement was forwarded in the prescribed proforma, copy of which is produced as Ext. P13, and there was no irregularity in submission of the statements. Even though the 2nd respondent had submitted Ext. P14 explanation before the 1st respondent, the benefit was again declined by sending Ext. P15 reply, stating the reason that there was a change in the prescribed format with respect to the year 2007-2008 and all the Deputy Directors of Education were requested to issue necessary directions to the heads of educational institutions to submit the statements in the changed format. However, it is stated that, statements submitted with respect to the subsequent year of 2008-2009 was considered, since the format was again changed dispensing with the requirement for obtaining signature of the students. It is challenging Exts. P12 and P15 and seeking appropriate direction for payment of the financial assistance, this writ petition is filed.