Arbitrary Scholarship Denial Struck Down | AP High Court Upholds Equal Aid For Tribal Schools Under BAS Scheme
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh Single Bench of Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda held that the non-uniform distribution of pre-matric scholarships under the Best Available Schools (BAS) Scheme to certain schools in SPSR Nellore District was arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. The Court directed the respondent authorities to enhance the scholarship amount for the petitioners’ schools to ₹15,000 per annum for Classes III and IV and ₹20,000 per annum for Classes V to X, on par with other similarly situated schools. The Court further ordered the payment of arrears with interest at 6% per annum, to be effected within three months from the receipt of the order.
The petitioners, schools located in SPSR Nellore District, were selected under the Best Available Schools Scheme (BAS) formulated by the Government of Andhra Pradesh. This scheme was designed to promote educational opportunities for tribal students, offering a pre-matric scholarship up to ₹20,000 annually per student, inclusive of costs for textbooks, boarding, stationery, and lodging, as per G.O.Ms.No.70 SW (TW Edn.II) Department dated 01.08.2001.
The petitioners were registered with the District Level Committee (DLC), offering education from Classes V to X in accordance with the scheme. These institutions received official recognition from both the Social Welfare and Tribal Welfare Departments. Despite their inclusion under the BAS framework, the scholarship amounts sanctioned to the petitioners’ schools ranged inconsistently from ₹8,000 to ₹20,000, allegedly based on discretionary decisions by the authorities.
Contrastingly, other BAS schools in different districts were granted the full ₹20,000 scholarship per student per annum. The petitioners submitted several representations to rectify this disparity and sought equal disbursement in line with the District Level Committee’s recommendations. The State authorities did not act on these representations, which led to the filing of the writ petition.
In their counter affidavit, the respondents cited G.O.Ms.No.70 and subsequent G.O.Ms.No.161 dated 11.08.2008, which outline the scholarship structure. Specifically, it delegated sanctioning authority to the DLC for amounts up to ₹8,000 (Classes up to VII) and ₹12,000 (Classes VIII–X), and to the State Level Committee (SLC) for amounts exceeding those figures. The counter stated that the SLC had not approved enhancement for the petitioners’ schools based on alleged non-fulfillment of institutional standards under Clause VII 1(a) of G.O.Ms.No.70.
The petitioners’ counsel, Sri C.L.N. Gandhi, argued that their schools were already recognized under the BAS Scheme and that denial of enhanced scholarships amounted to unconstitutional discrimination under Article 14. The Government Pleader for Social Welfare maintained that the SLC had acted in accordance with the G.O.s and based its decision on the available standards and guidelines.
The records revealed that while the District Level Committee recommended enhancement, the State Level Committee during its meeting on 30.09.2013 approved varying amounts for several schools under BAS, including some that were granted the full ₹20,000. Five specific schools were detailed in the minutes of the meeting, with the scholarship amounts ranging from ₹8,800 to ₹20,000 based on individual school evaluations.
However, for the petitioners’ institutions, the remarks column in the SLC’s decision minutes was left blank, and no reasons were assigned for denying enhanced scholarships. The Court noted this discrepancy and the absence of documented justification as central to the dispute.
The Court recorded: “Undisputedly, the petitioners schools were selected under Best Available Schools Scheme in SPSR Nellore District and sanctioned scholarship amount of Rs.8,800/- and Rs.13,300/- as per G.O.Ms.No.161, Social Welfare (TW Edn.I) Dept dated 11.08.2008.”
It further stated: “From the above, it is clear that, the amount of scholarship payable for a student beyond Rs.8,000/- and Rs.12,000/- will be decided by the State Level Committee.”
Regarding the competence of the State Level Committee, the Court observed: “The proposal for selection of a school on certain criteria prescribed in the G.O. will be considered by the District Level Committee and on finding it suitable for selection, forward it to the State Level Committee along with its recommendation and the State Level Committee will be competent to issue the selection orders by considering the recommendation of the District Level Committee, but arrive at its own conclusion.”
Addressing the SLC’s failure to provide reasons, the Court cited precedent, stating: “Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless.”
The Court added: “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.”
On the issue of arbitrariness, it noted: “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 Court issued the following directions:
“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.”
Further, it ordered: “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.”
The Court concluded: “With the above, writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall also stand dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Sri C.L.N. Gandhi, Advocate
For the Respondents: Learned Government Pleader for Social Welfare
Case Title: Re: The Government of Andhra Pradesh
Case Number: W.P.No.27468 of 2013
Bench: Justice Venkateswarlu Nimmagadda
[Read/Download order]
