<p>Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has struck down a clause from the government resolution which had removed the income criterion for overseas scholarships, and stressed that the scholarship's original intent of supporting backward students should be preserved.</p>.<p>A division bench of Justices Avinash Gharote and M S Jawalkar passed the verdict on Wednesday, stating that by nullifying Clause D(2) of the GR issued by the Maharashtra government on June 27, 2017, it wants rectify the imbalance in scholarship distribution and uphold fairness in access to educational opportunities.</p>.<p>The Clause D(2) exempted students admitted to the top 100 QS World University Ranking institutions from the income criteria, which led to financially-stable students availing benefits intended for economically-deprived candidates, thus distorting the scheme's purpose, it noted.</p>.<p>The ruling came in response to a writ petition filed by Mayur Sanghrakshit Patil, a 28-year-old student from Nagpur, in which he talked about the inequities in scholarship distribution based on income thresholds.</p>.<p>Patil, belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC) category, contested the clause on the grounds of unfairness, highlighting its adverse impact on economically disadvantaged students.</p>.<p>Patil submitted that he has been selected to pursue an educational programme at the Duke University (in USA), but banks are not ready to grant loan due to his financial inability, thereby depriving him of his right to education.</p>.<p>The benefit of the scheme is availed by students who are economically stable and can themselves make expenses to seek education abroad. His annual family income, standing at Rs 2,78,000 placed him within the lower-income bracket, he said.</p>.<p>The petitioner also submitted the information regarding students and the income of their guardians.</p>.<p>The court noted that the information provided portrays a very dismal picture as students whose guardians have substantial income and who are well-placed in life have been granted the benefit of the scholarship, which defeats the very purpose for which the scheme was brought into force - to grant scholarships to persons who could not afford higher education abroad.</p>.<p>The court's scrutiny revealed the discrepancy caused by clause D(2), which exempted students admitted to the top 100 QS World Ranking institutions from the income criteria. This exemption led to financially-stable students availing benefits intended for economically-deprived candidates, thus distorting the scheme's purpose, it noted.</p>.<p>Additionally, the court noted the government's inconsistent stance on income criteria, with revisions being made due to factors such as COVID-19. Despite discussions proposing a revision to a maximum family income of Rs 8 lakh, no formal amendment was enacted, leaving the 2017 resolution intact.</p>.<p>The verdict stressed the necessity of preserving the scholarship's original intent, aimed at supporting backward caste students in accessing higher education. By nullifying Clause D (2), the court aims to rectify the imbalance in scholarship distribution and uphold fairness in access to educational opportunities.</p>.<p>The court directed the authorities to reassess Patil's scholarship application within two weeks, considering the implications of the ruling. </p>
<p>Nagpur: The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has struck down a clause from the government resolution which had removed the income criterion for overseas scholarships, and stressed that the scholarship's original intent of supporting backward students should be preserved.</p>.<p>A division bench of Justices Avinash Gharote and M S Jawalkar passed the verdict on Wednesday, stating that by nullifying Clause D(2) of the GR issued by the Maharashtra government on June 27, 2017, it wants rectify the imbalance in scholarship distribution and uphold fairness in access to educational opportunities.</p>.<p>The Clause D(2) exempted students admitted to the top 100 QS World University Ranking institutions from the income criteria, which led to financially-stable students availing benefits intended for economically-deprived candidates, thus distorting the scheme's purpose, it noted.</p>.<p>The ruling came in response to a writ petition filed by Mayur Sanghrakshit Patil, a 28-year-old student from Nagpur, in which he talked about the inequities in scholarship distribution based on income thresholds.</p>.<p>Patil, belonging to the Scheduled Caste (SC) category, contested the clause on the grounds of unfairness, highlighting its adverse impact on economically disadvantaged students.</p>.<p>Patil submitted that he has been selected to pursue an educational programme at the Duke University (in USA), but banks are not ready to grant loan due to his financial inability, thereby depriving him of his right to education.</p>.<p>The benefit of the scheme is availed by students who are economically stable and can themselves make expenses to seek education abroad. His annual family income, standing at Rs 2,78,000 placed him within the lower-income bracket, he said.</p>.<p>The petitioner also submitted the information regarding students and the income of their guardians.</p>.<p>The court noted that the information provided portrays a very dismal picture as students whose guardians have substantial income and who are well-placed in life have been granted the benefit of the scholarship, which defeats the very purpose for which the scheme was brought into force - to grant scholarships to persons who could not afford higher education abroad.</p>.<p>The court's scrutiny revealed the discrepancy caused by clause D(2), which exempted students admitted to the top 100 QS World Ranking institutions from the income criteria. This exemption led to financially-stable students availing benefits intended for economically-deprived candidates, thus distorting the scheme's purpose, it noted.</p>.<p>Additionally, the court noted the government's inconsistent stance on income criteria, with revisions being made due to factors such as COVID-19. Despite discussions proposing a revision to a maximum family income of Rs 8 lakh, no formal amendment was enacted, leaving the 2017 resolution intact.</p>.<p>The verdict stressed the necessity of preserving the scholarship's original intent, aimed at supporting backward caste students in accessing higher education. By nullifying Clause D (2), the court aims to rectify the imbalance in scholarship distribution and uphold fairness in access to educational opportunities.</p>.<p>The court directed the authorities to reassess Patil's scholarship application within two weeks, considering the implications of the ruling. </p>