[2026:RJ-JP:1418] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19560/2025 Aditya Sharma S/o Shri Brij Bhushan Sharma, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Urban, Aditya School, Sogariya Main Road, Sogariya, Near Petrol Pump, Kota - North India, Ward No. 10, Kota, Rajasthan- 324002 ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of College Education, Secretariat, Jaipur 2. Commissioner, College Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Commissionerate Of College Education, Block- 4 Rks Sankul, Jln Road, Jaipur-302015 3. Joint Director (Svs), College Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Commissionerate Of College Education, Block- 4, Rks Sankul, Jln Road, Jaipur-302015 4. Deputy Secretary, Higher Education (Group-3) Department, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Priyansha Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S Naruka, AAG Mr. Anshuman Singh Mr. Hamir Shekhawat HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 13/01/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner primarily, being aggrieved of the denial by the respondents of change of course and non-sanction of scholarship under the Swami Vivekanand Scholarship for Academic Excellence Scheme [2026:RJ-JP:1418] (2 of 5) [CW-19560/2025] for UG courses in Bachelors of Information Technology and Bachelors of Science. 2. After considering the arguments advanced, this Court vide its order dated 19.12.2025 issued following directions which reads as under:- “3. In the meanwhile, as the primary contention of the petitioner is that the curriculum of the course of Bachelor of Computer Science (Majors) from Pennsylvania State University, USA isequivalent to the Bachelor of Information Technology and Bachelor of Science from Monash University, Australia, it is open to the petitioner to approach the respondent - Authorities by way of a representation. The petitioner may, along with said representation, substantiate that the curriculum of these courses are identical or equivalent. 4. If the respondents, upon consideration of the representation made by the petitioner and both the curriculums, find merit therein and determine that the curriculums are indeed equivalent, they shall take an appropriate decision in accordance with law. 5. The said representation be submitted by the petitioner on or before 23.12.2025, which the respondents shall decide on or before 29.12.2025.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after passing of the order by this Court dated 19.12.2025, he had approached the respondents, pursuant whereto an order dated 29.12.2025 was passed by the respondents, wherein it has been held that the curriculum of the course of Bachelor of Data Science from Pennsylvania State University (USA) and Bachelor of Information Technology & Bachelor of Science from Monash University, Australia, is not identical and consequently, the representation [2026:RJ-JP:1418] (3 of 5) [CW-19560/2025] filed by the petitioner was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very same speaking order dated 29.12.2025, specifically records that if the course under study at the Monash University is that of Bachelor of Data Science, then the University upgrade can be accepted by the respondents. 4. In consequence of the said finding, the petitioner has further changed its course from Bachelor of Information Technology & Bachelor of Science to Bachelor of Data Science in Computer Science. Learned counsel thus submits that once the respondents themselves have recorded a finding that in case the petitioner pursues the course of Data Science at Monash University, the University upgrade can be done and in pursuance thereto, the petitioner has now changed the course to Bachelor of Data Science in Computer Science, thus, the respondents are bound to offer the scholarship to the petitioner. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits the order dated 29.12.2025 is very categorical and specific findings have been recorded therein that the two courses which were referred to in the order dated 19.12.2025 are not identical, and hence, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for. 6. Further, in view of the fact that change in University and change in course is permissible only once, which the petitioner has already availed, any further change is not permissible under the scholarship scheme. 7. Heard the submissions made at Bar. 8. The petitioner is not disputing the findings recorded in the order dated 29.12.2025, which holds that the courses viz. Bachelor of Data Science from Pennsylvania State University [2026:RJ-JP:1418] (4 of 5) [CW-19560/2025] (USA) and Bachelor of Information Technology & Bachelor of Science from Monash University, Australia, are not identical. That being a finding of fact, the denial of scholarship by the respondents cannot be said to be arbitrary in any manner. The fact that these two courses are not identical stands further corroborated by petitioner’s own stand that subsequent to the passing of the order dated 29.12.2025, the petitioner himself has changed the course at Monash University from Bachelor of Information Technology & Bachelor of Science to Bachelor of Data Science in Computer Science so as to make it compatible with the course which he had opted at Pennsylvania State University. 9. It is further observed that change in course cannot be permitted so as to make the petitioner fall within the four corners of the scheme. Thus, at this stage, no interference is called for. 10. However, considering the fact that the object of the said scheme is to grant scholarship to the eligible students and considering the fact that the petitioner has now been issued an offer letter by Monash University for the course – Bachelor of Computer Science, which as per the petitioner is similar to the course which he had opted for at Pennsylvania State University, it would be open to the petitioner to make a representation before the respondent, which may consider the same in accordance with law and within the four corners of the applicable scheme. 11. At this stage, learned counsel submits that alongwith the offer letter dated 31.12.2025 issued by Monash University, which refers to the course of Bachelors of Computer Science, the petitioner had already approached the respondents, however, they are yet to receive any response from them. [2026:RJ-JP:1418] (5 of 5) [CW-19560/2025] 12. Considering the limited time frame which the petitioner has, as it is told that his visa application is pending, the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the respondents who would make genuine efforts to pass an order upon the same, preferably by 16.01.2026, which may be communicated to the petitioner accordingly. 13. With the above directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. 14. All pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J DIKSHA MISHRA /119