Rajasthan High Court: In a special writ appeal, filed against an order dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, the Division Bench of Sanjeev Prakash Sharma*, Acting CJ., and Shubha Mehta, J., allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order, holding that the condition related to change of university or course, under Clause 13(xiv) and (xv), Swami Vivekanand Scholarship for Academic Excellence Yojana Guidelines 2025 (Guidelines 2025), that it can be availed only once during the studies, is applicable only if the student has started his studies and scholarship has been granted and utilised in a particular institute and then the student has shifted to another university or upgraded to a higher course. The Court held that the action of the respondents denying the grant to the appellant was a case of the misconception and misunderstanding of the provisions of the Guidelines 2025.
Background
A scholarship scheme, Swami Vivekanand Scholarship for Academic Excellence was notified by State Government in May 2024. The appellant applied for the scholarship on 24 May 2024 for Pennsylvania State University, USA for bachelor course of Computer Science but he was advised to withdraw his scholarship application on 24 June 2024, as Computer Science fell under category of “Engineering”, while the appellant was eligible for “Physics”. After withdrawing and filing fresh application on the same day, he received revised offer on 24 June 2024 from university accepting subject change.
Pursuant to this, the appellant reapplied for scholarship under “Physics” and received a provisional selection on 24 March 2025 and final communication of selection vide letter dated 28 April 2025 but by then, the acceptance from the University had expired. He received another provisional acceptance for scholarship in March 2025 deferring his course but he had to change his subject from “Physics” to “Data Science”.
The appellant states that portal had 3 options UC (University Change), CC (Course Change) and DC (Defer Course) and he had applied for the third (Defer Course) on 7 May 2025. The university informed that the course of Data Science falls under “Science Course” and not under “Engineering”. Appellant’s request was converted by the Department to CC by order dated 30 May 2025 but he was declared ineligible on the basis of Guidelines 2025. The appellant’s visa could not be obtained and the deadline to join the Pennsylvania State University by September 2025 expired.
The appellant applied for admission at Monash University, Australia for course of “Bachelors of Information Technology and Bachelors of Science (C2003)” and received acceptance letter on 4 November 2025 with information that the confirmation of enrolment would only be granted after the appellant provides a financial guarantee letter to the University.
Appellant’s request to change and upgrade the university, on 4 November 2025, was allowed but the request for course change was rejected on the basis of Clause 13(xv), Guidelines 2025, giving reason that the change of course would only be permissible once during the scholarship duration and as the appellant had changed the course twice, he was ineligible to get the scholarship.
Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed the writ petition, which was dismissed by the Single Judge. Appearing in person, the appellant appealed against the order dismissing the writ petition. Hence, this appeal.
Analysis & Decision
The Court observed that the appellant’s petition was dismissed on the ground that he cannot be permitted to change the course merely to make himself within the 4 corners of the scheme. The respondent contended that change in university and course is permissible only once which had already been availed and further change is not permissible under the scheme. The selection of a student is based on his academic excellence and merit along with compliance of conditions under Clause 13 for grant of scholarship.
The Court noted that sub-clauses (xiv) and (xv) of Clause 13, Guidelines 2025 reflect that it is upon the student concerned to get admission in the foreign university or institutes concerned and has to arrange the visa himself. The student would be entitled to upgrade from one university to another with the permission of the State Government and scholarship already given and spent, while undergoing studies in the previous institution will have to be adjusted with studies in the new institute accordingly.
The Court further noted that sub-clause (xv) states that a candidate would be entitled to shift his course of studies while undergoing the earlier course to a course of higher rank and he cannot change his course to a lower rank than what he is already undergoing; and such change of university, as provided under sub-clause (xiv), and change of course as provided under sub-clause (xv), can be availed only once during the studies. But the Guidelines 2025 nowhere mention the situation of the present case.
The Court observed that in the present case, the student had not started his studies at all. The conditions are applicable only if he had started his studies and scholarship had been granted and utilised in a particular institute and then the student would have shifted to another university or upgraded to a higher course. But in the case of the appellant the student could not avail the sanction because the same was delayed. The period of joining had expired for taking up the course of Physics in the Pennsylvania University and next year, when the sanction was granted for pursuing Data Science at the Pennsylvania University, the visa could not be received in time. The appellant again applied for Monash University, Australia where on account of the action of the Department, the sanction was not given within time and he was informed that he cannot change his subject.
The Court opined that the letter denying him the course at Monash University, Australia was a case of misconception and misunderstanding of the provisions of sub-clauses (xiv) and (xv) of Clause 13, Guidelines 2025. The conditions of change of subject and university only apply to a student who has availed the scholarship.
The Court held that the interpretation of provisions has to be done in a manner to help the student to pursue his course and not to create hurdles. The appellant was prevented from pursuing his course as he was not allowed to change the subject to a lower level although allowed to change the university. Much time had elapsed since he had initially applied for the scholarship and a meritorious student has been deprived from pursuing his studies.
Thus, the Court allowed the appeal, quashed the impugned letter denying the scholarship and set aside the impugned order of the Court with directions that the State Government shall immediately release the scholarship amount and allow the appellant to do all the formalities required for the purpose expeditiously.
[Aditya Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, 2026:RJ-JP:20977-DB, decided on 20-5-2026]
*Judgment authored by: Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For Appellant: Aditya Sharma
For Respondents: S.S.Naruka, Chinmay Saxena, Ritika Naruka
