1 APHC010009692024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] TUESDAY, THE 29th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 685/2024 Between: 1. DUTTA DHANA SUNDARA RAO,, S/O. VENNKATARAMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCC EMPLOYEE, R/O. D. NO. 2-252/1, 2ND WARD, AVANIGADDA, KRISHNA DISTRICT ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 2. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FINANCE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT, VELAGAPUDI, AMARAVATHI, GUNTUR DISTRICT. 3. THE AP STATE KAPU WELFARE AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD, REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, OFFICE AT 12-467, 3RD FLOOR, POTHURI MERCANTILE, NH-16 SERVICE ROAD, TADEPALLI. GUNTUR DISTRICT. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased topleased to issue Writ or Direction especially one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 3rd Respondent in not releasing the 2nd installment Financial Assistance for the petitioner's .son namely Dutta Jeevan educational purposes at Abroad under Videshi Vidya Deevana Scheme' having been approved his name for the said benefit by the State Level Screening Committee as highly illegal, opposed to the Policy Decision of the Government, arbitrary, exercise of power and also opposed to doctrine of 2 legitimate- expectation and violative of Article 14, 21-A of Constitution of India and consequently direct the respondents to release the 2nd installment financial assistance to the petitioners son namely Dutta Jeevan under the said scheme forthwith to mitigate the hardship of the selected one and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to direct the respondents to release the 2nd installment financial assistance to the petitioner's son namely Dutta Jeevan under "Videshi Vidya Deevana Scheme" as approved under the list of approval forthwith pending disposal of the above writ petition and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased prayed that this Hon’ble court to discharge the petitioner herein in WP No. 685 of 2024 and Pass Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. B S N NAIDU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR SOCIAL WELFARE (AP) 2. Chejarla Venkateswara rao SC For A.P.Kapu welfare and developement Corp.LTD 3. GP FOR FINANCE PLANNING (AP) 3 The Court made the following Order: The petitioner is aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent No.3 in releasing the 2nd installment of financial assistance granted to the petitioner’s son for studying abroad under Videshi Vidya Deevana Scheme. The petitioner’s son applied for the grant of financial aid for pursuing higher education abroad under the Videshi Vidya Deevana Scheme 2018-2019. The petitioner’s son application was approved by the State Level Screening Committee. Thereafter, the respondent authorities have released an amount of Rs.5,06,000/- on 19.02.2019 to the account of the petitioner’s son as the 1st installment. The petitioner’s son had applied for admission to study Master of Science in Informative technology in the university of KIEL Christianal Breach TSPL, ATZ424118, Germany. Thereafter, the petitioner’s son had transferred to Clausthal University of Technology and completed the requirement formalities for release of the 2nd installment of Rs.5,00,000/-. Though, the petitioner’s son uploaded the required documents in the year 2019, the respondent No.3 had not released the 2nd instalment duly payable to the petitioner’s son. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that this Court considered the such identical cases and also allowed the Writ Petitions directing the respondents to release the sanctioned amount to the beneficiaries. 3. Learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submits that G.O.Ms.No.16 dated 17.05.2016 was issued prescribing operational guidelines for implementation of the Videshi Vidya Deevana Scheme for 4 Kapu, Telaga, Balija and Ontari community. It is submitted that the mandatory requirements would require the candidate to obtain permission on case to case basis from the State Level Screening Committee in the event the candidate changes the course or the university. It is submitted that the petitioner’s son did not obtain the requisite approval from the State Level Screening Committee while changing the university as such is not entitled for the 2nd instalment. 4. It is also submitted that the detailed counter is filed and that the petitioner on the matter of fundamental right, cannot claim for benefit which was introduced for assisting eligible candidates to study abroad. However, the same cannot be made applicable for the candidates who did not applied with the mandatory requirements as per the G.O.M.S.No.16 dated 17.05.2016. 5. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s son has submitted the requisite email to the concerned authority duly informing the changing university followed by several emails. However, none of the email were responded by the respondent No.3 except for the reply email dated 11.03.2024 addressed by the respondent No.3 duly informing the petitioner’s son that the petitioner’s son is not entitled the 2nd installment under the scheme on account of changing university without the requisite approval. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for respondent No.3. 7. Perused the record. 5 8. G.O.Ms.No.16 is issued as a beneficial G.O. meat to aid the eligible students who intend to study abroad under the scheme introduced by the Government. 9. Though, the operational guidelines would require the candidates to seek the permission on case by case basis from the State Level Screening Committee for changing the university, the requisite procedure is not prescribed under the guidelines. In absence of the procedure prescribed the petitioner’s son had sent emails to the concerned authorities duly intimating the change of university. The respondents have not referred the petitioner’s son denying the permission or granting the permission. 10. That apart, the guidelines also did not stipulate the manner of approval or permission of the State Level Screening Committee which has to be followed by the students. 11. Considering the fact that G.O.M.S.No.16 is a beneficial G.O. which is introduced with an intention of extending the financial assistance to the eligible candidates belonging to a particular community and it is introduced for their upliftment, the respondent authority cannot deny the 2nd installment on the ground that the petitioner’s son had not obtained the permission before shifting in the university. Now as the petitioner’s son have completed the course, the respondent No.3 shall have to release the balance installment within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 12. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. 6 As a sequel thereto, the miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ____________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N 29.09.2026 RSD/BAK 7 47 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 685/2024 29.09.2026 RSD/BAK