[2026:RJ-JP:4197] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7976/2025 Mohd. Ali Gour Son Of Shri Sharfuddin Gour, Resident Of Urban Mohalla Shekhpura, Kureshi Quarters Ke Pichhe, Ward No. 34, Sikar (Rajasthan). ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary Higher And Technical Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. The Commissioner College Education, Commissionerate Of College Education, Rrs Sankul, Jln Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 3. Joint Director (Academic), Commissionerate Of College Education, Rrs Sankul, Jln Road, Jaipur (Rajasthan). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Akriti Mathur for Mr. Amit Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chinmay Saxena with Mr. Jitendra Takkar for Mr. S.S. Naruka, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 29/01/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner being aggrieved of the order dated 27.12.2024 vide which the petitioner’s request for change of University was rejected in consequence to the decision of the Selection Committee meeting held on 20.11.2024. 2. Ms. Akriti Mathur, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner applied for scholarship under the Rajiv Gandhi Scholarship for Academic Excellence Scheme, 2021, which is now known as the Swami Vivekanand Scholarship for Academic Excellence Scheme, 2021 (hereinafter referred to as “the Scheme of 2021”) and as per Clause 6 of the said Scheme of 2021, all the provisionally selected students for scholarship, are mandatorily required to provide unconditional offer letter from the Universities [2026:RJ-JP:4197] (2 of 4) [CW-7976/2025] within a period of two months from the date of provisional selection. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the petitioner was provisionally selected by the respondents on 04.06.2024, however, for reasons beyond petitioner’s control, the petitioner could submit his final unconditional offer letter from the University of Auckland, New Zealand for the course of Master of Global Studies only on 12.09.2024 and as the said offer letter was submitted by the petitioner beyond the period of two months, the application for change of University of the petitioner was cancelled by the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the said delay was beyond the petitioner’s control and there was no occasion for the respondents to deprive the petitioner from the said Scholarship Scheme, as for all the other reasons the petitioner is very much eligible and on the basis of his merits, the petitioner is entitled for the award of Scholarship. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that another candidate namely, Mr. Harnoor Baweja has been granted Scholarship under the Scheme of 2021 despite the fact that he submitted his offer letter after a period of two months from the date of his provisional selection and thus, the respondents are discriminating the petitioner which cannot be permitted. 6. Thus, for the above-mentioned reasons, it is prayed that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned rejection of the petitioner in the meeting dated 20.11.2024 which resulted in passing of the rejection order on 27.12.2024, deserves to be quashed. [2026:RJ-JP:4197] (3 of 4) [CW-7976/2025] 7. Per contra, Mr. Chinmay Saxena, Advocate, with Mr. Jitendra Takkar, Advocate, for Mr. S.S. Naruka, learned Additional Advocate General, submits that the petitioner was duly aware about the terms of the Scheme of 2021 and once the petitioner is claiming the benefit of Scholarship under the said Scheme of 2021, he is bound to adhere with the terms and conditions stipulated therein. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the eligibility criteria mentioned in the Scheme of 2021, in unequivocal terms provided that the unconditional offer letter has to be submitted by a candidate within a period of two months from the date of provisional selection, which admittedly in the present case the petitioner has failed to submit and thus, the respondents have done no wrong in rejecting the petitioner’s candidature. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents also submits that no discrimination whatsoever has been done by them and the candidate Mr. Harnoor Baweja, as named by the petitioner was also not granted the benefit of the Scholarship Scheme, as the offer letter submitted even by him was beyond the period of two months from the date of issuing his provisional selection letter. 10. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the respondents have applied the Scheme on all the candidates in a consistent manner and thus, the claim as made by the petitioner is misconceived and consequently, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 12. It goes without saying that once a candidate is claiming benefit under a Scheme, the said candidate is duly bound by the [2026:RJ-JP:4197] (4 of 4) [CW-7976/2025] terms and conditions stipulated therein and the same cannot be amended or altered so as to suit the candidate. Once the eligibility criteria specifically provides for providing an unconditional offer letter from the University in which the said candidate has been so selected within a period of two months from the date of his provisional selection by the respondents, there is no occasion to dilute, much less extend the said period solely to meet the convenience of the candidate. 13. Undisputedly, in the present case the provisional selection of the petitioner was made by the respondents on 04.06.2024 and the unconditional offer letter from the University of Auckland, with which the petitioner wanted to pursue his course and is claiming Scholarship was issued on 12.09.2024, which is beyond the prescribed period of two months. Hence, no fault can be found in the rejection of the petitioner solely on the said ground. Further, the respondents very categorically in their reply have stated that no such benefit to Mr. Harnoor Baweja as alleged by the petitioner has been granted and the subsequent change request made by him on 29.10.2024 was also rejected. Thus, even the case of the discrimination as alleged by the petitioner is not made out. 14. Accordingly, no case for indulgence is made out and consequently, the writ petition is dismissed. 15. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J DANISH USMANI /31